Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Natasha Vita-More | Transhuman Art

 Transhuman  Comments Off on Natasha Vita-More | Transhuman Art
Jan 182016
 

Natashas research concerns the aesthetics of human enhancement and radical life extension, with a focus on sciences and technologies of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive and neuro sciences (NBIC). Her conceptual future human design Primo Posthuman has been featured in Wired, Harpers Bazaar, Marie Claire, The New York Times, U.S. News & World Report, Net Business, Teleopolis, and Village Voice. She has appeared in over twenty-four televised documentaries on the future and culture, and has exhibited media artworks at National Centre for Contemporary Arts, Brooks Memorial Museum, Institute of Contemporary Art, Women In Video, Telluride Film Festival, and United States Film Festival and recently Evolution Haute Couture: Art and Science in the Post-Biological Age. Natasha has been the recipient of several awards: First Place Award at Brooks Memorial Museum, Special Recognition at Women in Video, and Best Graduate Student Project of 2005 for her Futures Podcast Series: at the University of Houston, Future Studies program.

Natasha is a proponent human rights and ethical means for human enhancement, and is published in Artifact, Technoetic Arts, Nanotechnology Perceptions, Annual Workshop on Geoethical Nanotechnology, Death And Anti- Death. She has a bi-monthly column in Nanotechnology Now, is a Guest Editor of The Global Spiral academic journal and on the Editorial Board of International Journal of Green Nanotechnology. Natasha authored Create / Recreate: the 3rd Millennial Culture on the emerging cybernetic culture and the future of humanism and the arts and sciences. She co-authored One on One Fitness, a guide to nutrition and aerobic and anaerobic exercise for women. Her new book The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Look at Philosophy and Technology is scheduled for publishing in 2012 through Wiley-Blackwell.

Natasha is Chair of Humanity+, international non-profit 501c3 organization and was the former president of Extropy Institute, networking organization Natasha continues to work with academic institutions, non-profit organizations and business about human futures. She is a track advisor at the Singularity University, on the Scientific Board of Lifeboat Foundation, a Fellow of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, Visiting Scholar at 21st Century Medicine, and advises non-profit organizations including Adaptive A.I. and Alcor Life Extension Foundation. She has been a consultant to IBM on the future of human performance.

See the original post here:
Natasha Vita-More | Transhuman Art

 Posted by at 6:40 am  Tagged with:

Freedom to Tinker Research and expert commentary on …

 Freedom  Comments Off on Freedom to Tinker Research and expert commentary on …
Nov 032015
 

Yesterday I posted some thoughts about Purdue Universitys decision to destroy a video recording of my keynote address at its Dawn or Doom colloquium. The organizers had gone dark, and a promised public link was not forthcoming. After a couple of weeks of hoping to resolve the matter quietly, I did some digging and decided to write up what I learned. I posted on the web site of the Century Foundation, my main professional home:

It turns out that Purdue has wiped all copies of my video and slides from university servers, on grounds that I displayed classified documents briefly on screen. A breach report was filed with the universitys Research Information Assurance Officer, also known as the Site Security Officer, under the terms of Defense Department Operating Manual 5220.22-M. I am told that Purdue briefly considered, among other things, whether to destroy the projector I borrowed, lest contaminants remain.

I was, perhaps, naive, but pretty much all of that came as a real surprise.

Lets rewind. Information Assurance? Site Security?

These are familiar terms elsewhere, but new to me in a university context. I learned that Purdue, like a number of its peers, has a facility security clearance to perform classified U.S. government research. The manual of regulations runs to 141 pages. (Its terms forbid uncleared trustees to ask about the work underway on their campus, but thats a subject for another day.) The pertinent provision here, spelled out at length in a manual called Classified Information Spillage, requires sanitization, physical removal, or destruction of classified information discovered on unauthorized media.

Two things happened in rapid sequence around the time I told Purdue about my post.

First, the university broke a week-long silence and expressed a measure of regret:

UPDATE: Just after posting this item I received an email from Julie Rosa, who heads strategic communications for Purdue. She confirmed that Purdue wiped my video after consulting the Defense Security Service, but the university now believes it went too far.

In an overreaction while attempting to comply with regulations, the video was ordered to be deleted instead of just blocking the piece of information in question. Just FYI: The conference organizers were not even aware that any of this had happened until well after the video was already gone.

Im told we are attempting to recover the video, but I have not heard yet whether that is going to be possible. When I find out, I will let you know and we will, of course, provide a copy to you.

Then Edward Snowden tweeted the link, and the Century Foundations web site melted down. It now redirects to Medium, where you can find the full story.

I have not heard back from Purdue today about recovery of the video. It is not clear to me how recovery is even possible, if Purdue followed Pentagon guidelines for secure destruction. Moreover, although the university seems to suggest it could have posted most of the video, it does not promise to do so now. Most importantly, the best that I can hope for here is that my remarks and slides will be made available in redacted form with classified images removed, and some of my central points therefore missing. There would be one version of the talk for the few hundred people who were in the room on Sept. 24, and for however many watched the live stream, and another version left as the only record.

For our purposes here, the most notable questions have to do with academic freedom in the context of national security. How did a university come to sanitize a public lecture it had solicited, on the subject of NSA surveillance, from an author known to possess the Snowden documents? How could it profess to be shocked to find that spillage is going on at such a talk? The beginning of an answer came, I now see, in the question and answer period after my Purdue remarks. A post-doctoral research engineer stood up to ask whether the documents I had put on display were unclassified. No, I replied. Theyre classified still. Eugene Spafford, a professor of computer science there, later attributed that concern to junior security rangers on the faculty and staff. But the display of Top Secret material, he said, once noted, is something that cannot be unnoted.

Someone reported my answer to Purdues Research Information Assurance Officer, who reported in turn to Purdues representative at the Defense Security Service. By the terms of its Pentagon agreement, Purdue decided it was now obliged to wipe the video of my talk in its entirety. I regard this as a rather devout reading of the rules, which allowed Purdue to realistically consider the potential harm that may result from compromise of spilled information. The slides I showed had been viewed already by millions of people online. Even so, federal funding might be at stake for Purdue, and the notoriously vague terms of the Espionage Act hung over the decision. For most lawyers, abundance of caution would be the default choice. Certainly that kind of thinking is commonplace, and sometimes appropriate, in military and intelligence services.

But universities are not secret agencies. They cannot lightly wear the shackles of a National Industrial Security Program, as Purdue agreed to do. The values at their core, in principle and often in practice, are open inquiry and expression.

I do not claim I suffered any great harm when Purdue purged my remarks from its conference proceedings. I do not lack for publishers or public forums. But the next person whose talk is disappeared may have fewer resources.

More importantly, to my mind, Purdue has compromised its own independence and that of its students and faculty. It set an unhappy precedent, even if the people responsible thought they were merely following routine procedures.

One can criticize the university for its choices, and quite a few have since I published my post. What interests me is how nearly the results were foreordained once Purdue made itself eligible for Top Secret work.

Think of it as a classic case of mission creep. Purdue invited the secret-keepers of the Defense Security Service into one cloistered corner of campus (a small but significant fraction of research in certain fields, as the university counsel put it). The trustees accepted what may have seemed a limited burden, confined to the precincts of classified research.

Now the security apparatus claims jurisdiction over the campus (facility) at large. The university finds itself sanitizing a conference that has nothing to do with any government contract.

I am glad to see that Princeton takes the view that [s]ecurity regulations and classification of information are at variance with the basic objectives of a University. It does not permit faculty members to do classified work on campus, which avoids Purdues facility problem. And even so, at Princeton and elsewhere, there may be an undercurrent of self-censorship and informal restraint against the use of documents derived from unauthorized leaks.

Two of my best students nearly dropped a course I taught a few years back, called Secrecy, Accountability and the National Security State, when they learned the syllabus would include documents from Wikileaks. Both had security clearances, for summer jobs, and feared losing them. I told them I would put the documents on Blackboard, so they need not visit the Wikileaks site itself, but the readings were mandatory. Both, to their credit, stayed in the course. They did so against the advice of some of their mentors, including faculty members. The advice was purely practical. The U.S. government will not give a clear answer when asked whether this sort of exposure to published secrets will harm job prospects or future security clearances. Why take the risk?

Every student and scholar must decide for him- or herself, but I think universities should push back harder, and perhaps in concert. There is a treasure trove of primary documents in the archives made available by Snowden and Chelsea Manning. The government may wish otherwise, but that information is irretrievably in the public domain. Should a faculty member ignore the Snowden documents when designing a course on network security architecture? Should a student write a dissertation on modern U.S.-Saudi relations without consulting the numerous diplomatic cables on Wikileaks? To me, those would be abdications of the basic duty to seek out authoritative sources of knowledge, wherever they reside.

I would be interested to learn how others have grappled with these questions. I expect to write about them in my forthcoming book on surveillance, privacy and secrecy.

See more here:
Freedom to Tinker Research and expert commentary on …

 Posted by at 8:42 pm  Tagged with:

An SEO Driven Approach To Content Marketing: The Complete …

 SEO  Comments Off on An SEO Driven Approach To Content Marketing: The Complete …
Sep 232015
 

Should you be worried about SEO on your content marketing blog?

In recent months, the necessity of search engine optimization has come under major fire. AsGoogle released their Panda and Penguin algorithms we all saw a major reduction in search spam, and an almost overnight, we began noticing major changes in the type of content we saw in our own search results.

Long time SEO Jill Whalen, is now internet famous for quitting her career as an SEO following these major announcements. Google works now said Jill, thismeans, my friends, that my work here is done.

What does she mean? Is SEO really dead?

As is often the case, nothing is really dead. SEO has changed, dramatically, and as Jill points out, this is a good thing. The good news for content creators like you is that it has changed in your favor.Google now rewards content marketing over spam bots and link-building tricks. Its a victory for good content and a loss for tactics of questionable nature.

This is a good thing.

You may be wondering why you still need to consider SEO in your writing with all of the changes that have been made by Google. The answer is relatively simple: For a long time, SEO was all about tricks and tactics. It was truly about optimization and opportunism, but not anymore. Now, SEO is about content. Lots of content.

In other words, SEO as we know it picked up camp and moved in with content marketing. We have a new roommate. Why not get to know it a little?

From what I can see, the opportunity for content marketers to use SEO-driven tactics is more applicable now than ever. We already have the content. What if we add a little science and tactic to our workwho knows where we might go in the future? We could even put ourselves on page one of search. Wouldnt that be something?

How should the content marketer be approaching the search engines with our writing? This guide aims to answer these two questions. SEO may not be dead, but it has dramatically changed and that means there is a big opportunity for the content marketer who is paying attention.

Heres a step-by-step guide to what you need to do to have a modernSEO-driven approach to content marketing.

When outlining an SEO strategy for content marketing, we take a slightly different approach than what we were used to. It is probably best to begin understanding how (and why) Google is rewarding longer-form contentand other content that is visually focused. Google has started to see these elements as symbols of quality, and is doing a better job of connecting search users to quality content.

Again, thats a good thing, but it doesnt mean that some of the tried and true techniques of old SEO arent still viable. Thats where keywords come in.

One of the most important aspects of search engine optimization has always been the keywords, those words that people use to find our content in search.

In the early days of SEO, the goal was to achieve exact keyword matching. This meant that the page we wanted people to find was perfectly tuned to show up in the search results when someone searched for that phrase. If you searched for exact keyword match, for example, you would find pages that used that phrase exactly as written. Not anymore. Now, you will find pages that discuss the general topic of exact keyword matching.

It may be subtle, but it is an important difference. Rand Fishkin of Moz explains it well in his whiteboard friday video.

All of that said, though, I still believe that mostgood SEO optimization still begin with the keyword. This hasnt changed.

Whats changed is the framework we need to use for implementing those keywords into our writing. This is the method that I am going to break down for you in the guide. I am going to show you, step by step, how to use keywords to create an SEO driven approach to content marketing.Try not to think of it as SEO so much as smart content marketing.

The first step is to find the keywords that matter most for you. There are several tools that will help you do this. The most notable is the Google Adwords Keyword Planner, a tool that is freely available with any Adwords account.

Should content marketers be using keywords in their writing process? Yes.

The concept here is very simple. Start by typing in one of the keywords that is most crucial to your business. Here at CoSchedule, for example, this would be something like content marketing or editorial calendars.From there, Google will automatically provide you with a list of words related to your primary keyword that people all around the world are searching for.

As a content marketer, this is incredibly valuable! Not only do you get a host of keyword ideas, but you should also begin to understand your readers more than ever. Thisiswhat they are searching for. How cool is that?

Keywords are located based on your website URL and product category. They are customized to you!

Once you have a list of results from Google, you can individually add keywords that stand out to you to your keyword plan.

Avoid getting get overly aggressive, though.For example, in this screenshot I probably dont need to add both content marketing strategy and content marketing strategies. They are a bit redundant, and not likely different enough for me to care about. Sincecontent marketing strategy gets more attention, it would make sense to go with that.

Add important keywords and phrases to your keyword plan.

Your goal here is to create a lost of 30-100 keywords that matter to your business, your audience, and to Google. You are doing research here, so the most important thing is that you learn what your audience wants, and what Google will reward.

Once youve created a good list, use the export option to download it as an Excel file, or whatever format you want to work with.

Key Point: Create a list of keywords that your blog should be targeting and keep it handy.

The list of keywords you built using the keyword planner is your new content marketing checklist. These are the words that you want your site to rank well for on Google. I consider them a list of keyword goals to shoot for.

The next step is to load these goals into a tool that will help your track and monitor where you site ranks for each of these terms. For this, I like to usePositionly, but larger SEO tools like Moz and RavenTools are good options as well. For me, Positionly offers a simplicity that the others dont. It does less, but sometimes that is more.

The purpose of Positionly is very simple. They aim to monitor daily changes to your search engine rankings and helpimprove where you show up in search engine listings. In other words, they will tell you where your site ranks on Google in respect to each keyword term that you add for your site.

Positionly will tell you how your sites ranks for each term. They will also monitor and report daily changes.

This is valuable information because it gives you a benchmark to work against. When you upload your initial list of terms, Positionly will give you an overall assessment of your site in comparison to your selected terms. Depending on how long you have been writing or working on SEO, your results may vary.

Positionly will asses how well your site currently rates for the keywords entered.

One of the hazards of a tools like Positionly is the frequency of information. On any given day you may log in to find that your rankings on several keywords have dropped for no particular reason. This is a natural occurrence, and not something that you should worry about too deeply. Ranking well on Google is an art, not a science. It is also a process, so dont expect to land on top and stay there forever. 😉

Key Point:Use a tool like Positionly to monitor your keyword ranking and track your progress.

Once you have your marching orders (keyword goals), it is time to start incorporating them into your content marketing process.

At CoSchedule, our goal is to focus on one keyword phrase each week by adding a blog post with that keyword phrase to our editorial calendar. We dont get overly scientific about it, we just plop it on there are and leave things up to the designated writer to figure out.

Incorporate your keyword based posts into your editorial calendar.

Once the post is on the calendar, it will get written. If you arent managing an editorial calendar for your team, this is an excellent reason to do so, and one that we heartily recommend. When you pre-plan your content you can become much more purposeful and strategic with you goals.

Once youve worked through your keyword goals list the first time, be sure to refer back to Positionly regularly to help prioritize the keywords that you want (and need) to improve on.

Key Point:Add keyword goals to your editorial calendar each week to keep yourself accountable.

It is worth mentioning at this point that you should never be writing a blog post where a specific keyword isnt identified.

On our team, we try as often as possible to identify the keyword immediately when scheduling a post. Each time we create a post, we either identify the keyword in the headline itself, or note it in the comments field if we are choosing to write the headline later on.

Identify SEO keywords before writing your content.

This is a good practice to get your team into, and will make a big impact on the quality of your posts. Not only will it add SEO value, but it will force your writing team to focus their writing on a well-selected and focused topic.

If you are having trouble identifying your keywords for one-off posts, there are two easy places you can go. First, you could always head back over to the Google Adwords Keyword Planning tool, but that might be overkill at this point. What I like to do is simply complete a basic Google search and take a look at the recommended search terms at the bottom of the page.

Related search terms on Google provide a wealth of keyword knowledge.

Another way to do this research is to use an content creation tool like Scribe by Copyblogger.

This tool allows you to do headline research right inside of your WordPress add/edit page, and provides additional details about the popularity and competition level of each keyword option. It will also provide data regarding your keywords from both Twitter and Google+.

The Scribe plugin by Copyblogger is a handy tool for content marketing SEO.

Key Point:Develop good habits, and declare a keyword for each post that you write.

Once you have a keyword selected for you post, you will need a few tools to ensure that your content stays on point. The two tools that we use here at CoSchedule are the Scribe plugin by Copyblogger and WordPress SEO from Yoast. If you are on a budget the Yoast plugin is free, and will get you 90% of the way to where you need to go.

Both of these plugins work in a similar way. With each, you start by declaring the keyword phrase that you are using for the post. From there, the plugins will tell you how well you content ranks for those keywords. These plugins will evaluate your post based on several key factors:

Article HeadlineIt is considered best practice to include your exact keyword phrase in the headline of your post.

Page Title The page title is the bit of text that will show up in your browser tab, or more importantly, at the top of your Google Search listing. You will definitely want to include your keyword in full here.

The Yoast snippet preview will give you a preview of your forth-coming search listing.

Page URLYour keyword should beincludedin the slug of your URL. WordPress makes this easy to customize as long as you do it before the post is published.

ContentBoth Yoast and Scribe will want to see that the keyword is mentioned within the content of your post. With this, the more you have the better. If you can include the keywords in various sub-headlines you will even get bonus points.

Meta Description The meta description is the short description of your post that will show up on Google. You will want to use your keyword phrase in this copy.

When writing your posts, you want to make sure they are as optimized as possible for the keywords that you are trying to reach. Both Scribe and Yoast will give your visual confirmation of your success.

Both WordPress SEO plugin and Scribe will visually show you how your articles ranks SEO-wise.

At our office, we always shoot for green before we publish every post. Clicking though both plugins will provide additional information and suggestions.

Yoast page analysis. Lots of good tips here.

Topics vs. Strict MatchOne thing that I want to point out is that you need to be careful about the difference between the strict matching of keywords and topic related search.

As Rand Fishkin pointed out the video posted above, Google cares more about how you cover the topic overall ratherthan the exact keyword itself. Yoast tends to lean to heavily on the strict match method, which is outdated by Googles standards. Scribe, however, seems to handle this much more gracefully and might be worth the extra investment.

Key Point:Optimize your posts so that they perform well for the chosen keywords.

Even though SEO is no longer about the tools and tricks, there are still a few you need to use to make sure that everything is in order. As any good web designer will tell you, most SEO happens in the page itself. If the structure and makeup of your webpage isnt properly optimized, you are already fighting an uphill battle.

You can always usePositionlyorthis free toolfrom Neil Patel to get an assessment of how your site performs.

Here are a few additional WordPress plugins that will help you get things in order:

WordPress SEO by YoastWordPress SEO is a powerful plugin. Use it to setup sitemaps on your site, and optimize your social sharing meta tags. Seriously, spend some time with this one.

WP Rocket Site speed can make a huge impact on your SEO performance. WP Rocket is a paid plugin, but unlike many of the free options, it shouldnt mess up your site. It is worth the few extra bucks.

In Depth Articles Generator Generates posts metadata for your pages to better present search results to users. There are other plugins that do this, but this one is simple and easy. If you need to validate that it is working, you can use the Google testing tool.

GooglesSearch Engine OptimizationStarter GuideThis free guide made available by Google is a great place to start in the world of SEO an optimization.

SEO isnt dead, it has just changed. The good news is that the new world of SEO is better than ever for content marketers like yourself. When combined with a few SEO basics, there is nothing stopping you from making SEO a core part of your inbound marketing strategy.

Read more:
An SEO Driven Approach To Content Marketing: The Complete …

 Posted by at 3:45 am  Tagged with:

Federal court rules that only drug companies, not supplement …

 Misc  Comments Off on Federal court rules that only drug companies, not supplement …
Sep 102015
 

(NaturalNews) In a ruling that many holistic healers and homeopathic physicians are likely to find hypocritical, a federal court has handed Big Pharma an unprecedented victory by giving a drug company preliminary approval to market a drug for a condition for which it has yet to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The drug, Vascepa, manufactured by Amarin Pharma, is approved for use in treating very high levels of fats known as triglycerides over 500 mg per deciliter in a patient’s bloodstream, reports AllGov.com. But Amarin also wanted to promote the medication for use in patients who have “persistently high levels” of triglycerides, from 200 to 499 mg/deciliter.

The FDA denied that request earlier this year over concerns that Vascepa would not help such patients avoid heart attacks or heart disease. That decision led Amarin to file suit in court, claiming its First Amendment rights permitted the company to provide information to physicians and other primary care providers.

Providers have long prescribed medications for “off-label” uses those not included in a drug’s literature or for uses not specifically approved by federal regulators but the drug companies have traditionally been banned from marketing their products for such off-label uses.

“This is huge,” Jacob Sherkow, an associate professor at New York Law School, told The Washington Post. “There have been other instances a court has held that off-label marketing is protected by the First Amendment, but… this is the first time, I think, that any federal court that any court has held in such a clear, full-throated way that off-label marketing is protected by the First Amendment, period, full stop.”

AllGov.com reported that the case stemmed from a 2012 New York City federal appeals court ruling finding that a Big Pharma sales rep had not violated FDA regulations by promoting off-label use for a drug to treat narcolepsy, Xyrem, because his speech as long as he was not being misleading was protected by the First Amendment. However, in the Amarin case, the FDA said that the Xyrem decision was limited in scope and therefore could not be applied to Vascepa, but Engelmayer disagreed.

However, the parameter of “truthful speech” and a complete statement of facts has proved concerning to some.

“I find the decision very troubling. It’s a big push off on to a very slippery slope, a very steep slippery slope toward removing the government’s authority to limit the claims that drug companies can make about the effectiveness of their products,” Harvard Medical School professor Jerry Avorn told the Post.

“There’s an enormous amount, enormous numbers of statements that drug companies could make about their products that are not overtly fraudulent, but are not the same as a comprehensive review of all the good and bad evidence, that the FDA undertakes when it reviews a drug,” Avorn added.

Makers and consumers of health-related supplements, however, are also decrying the ruling, especially companies whose First Amendment rights have been ignored by courts and the FDA in the past.

In December 2012, we reported that a federal appeals court in New York upheld the free speech rights of a pharmaceutical company regarding off-label uses of Xyrem, even as courts and the FDA were gagging makers of natural supplements.

And in March 2013, we reported that the FDA used a truth-in-labeling regulation in issuing warning letters to a pair of supplement companies whose “crime” was nothing more than having customer-related interactions via the Internet.

It appears that there are two separate standards for Big Pharma and holistic and homeopathic healers.

Sources:

AllGov.com

WashingtonPost.com

WSJ.com

NaturalNews.com

Permalink to this article: http://www.naturalnews.com/051109_drug_companies_First_Amendment_rights_nutritional_supplements.html

Embed article link: (copy HTML code below): Federal court rules that only drug companies, not supplement companies, have First Amendment rights to truthful speech about health

Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK, cite NaturalNews.com with clickable link.

Follow Natural News on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and Pinterest

Read this article:
Federal court rules that only drug companies, not supplement …

 Posted by at 10:44 am  Tagged with:

Moz Blog – SEO and Inbound Marketing Blog – Moz

 SEO  Comments Off on Moz Blog – SEO and Inbound Marketing Blog – Moz
Aug 262015
 

Learn SEO Broaden your SEO with marketing resources for all skill levels: best practices, beginner guides, industry survey results, videos, webinars and more.

Get started with: The Beginner’s Guide to SEO

The industry’s top wizards, doctors, and other experts offer their best advice, research, how-tos, and insightsall in the name of helping you level-up your SEO and online marketing skills.

A waterfall diagram, such as those produced by WebPageTest, is a powerful indicator of optimization opportunities. Do you know how to read them?

Are you a local business owner? Explore the hows and whys of submitting your business to local business directories in order to boost your local search visibility on Google.

Do search engines collect and utilise user behaviour data for ranking purposes? We’ve got a deep-dive into the data and theories behind user behaviour, search visibility, and more.

If you’re targeting a certain keyword, knowing where and how often to use that keyword in the various elements of your page is essential. In today’s Whiteboard Friday, Rand offers his recommendation.

There’s a compelling indicator of how our industry is evolving in an area that helps us become better marketers: gender equality. What’s changed over time and what are we doing to improve gender diversity in the workplace?

Have you seen the new Snack Pack? Explore Casey Meraz’s click test results on Google’s new local 3-pack, seeing what’s changed, what works, and what the future holds.

Those of you who have logged into your Moz Local dashboard recently may have noticed a few updates this week! I thought I’d post a quick announcement to highlight them.

Google recently shook up the local results in its SERPs, killing the local 7-packs in favor of a 3-pack that resembles the mobile experience. This post tells you everything you need to know about the change and what it means for your local marketing.

Brand fatigue is a real threat to your marketing strategy. In today’s Whiteboard Friday, Rand highlights some common causes of brand fatigue and how to combat it.

It’s here! We’re excited to announce the results of Moz’s biennial Search Engine Ranking Correlation Study and Expert Survey, aka Ranking Factors. Moz’s Ranking Factors study helps identify which attributes of pages and sites have the strongest association with ranking highly in Google. The study consists of t…

Today we’re excited to announce the results of Moz’s famous Ranking Factors study. The study helps to identify which attributes of webpages and sites have the strongest association with higher rankings in Google. Ready to dive in?

How do commercial and informational queries differ? Does one type of SERP show more or fewer results that are mobile-friendly or using HTTPS? Find those answers in this examination of more than 345,000 search results.

While SEO is a different field than it once was, technical chops are still required to do things really well. In today’s Whiteboard Friday, Rand pushes back against the idea that those skills are no longer necessary.

Buy your MozCon 2015 Video Bundle and access 27 sessions (over 15 hours) from top industry speakers on topics ranging from SEO and content strategy to email marketing and CRO.

Join the Moz Community to add a comment, give something a thumbs up/down, and get enhanced access to free tools!

View post:
Moz Blog – SEO and Inbound Marketing Blog – Moz

How the Bitcoin protocol actually works | DDI

 Bitcoin  Comments Off on How the Bitcoin protocol actually works | DDI
Aug 182015
 

Many thousands of articles have been written purporting to explain Bitcoin, the online, peer-to-peer currency. Most of those articles give a hand-wavy account of the underlying cryptographic protocol, omitting many details. Even those articles which delve deeper often gloss over crucial points. My aim in this post is to explain the major ideas behind the Bitcoin protocol in a clear, easily comprehensible way. Well start from first principles, build up to a broad theoretical understanding of how the protocol works, and then dig down into the nitty-gritty, examining the raw data in a Bitcoin transaction.

Understanding the protocol in this detailed way is hard work. It is tempting instead to take Bitcoin as given, and to engage in speculation about how to get rich with Bitcoin, whether Bitcoin is a bubble, whether Bitcoin might one day mean the end of taxation, and so on. Thats fun, but severely limits your understanding. Understanding the details of the Bitcoin protocol opens up otherwise inaccessible vistas. In particular, its the basis for understanding Bitcoins built-in scripting language, which makes it possible to use Bitcoin to create new types of financial instruments, such as smart contracts. New financial instruments can, in turn, be used to create new markets and to enable new forms of collective human behaviour. Talk about fun!

Ill describe Bitcoin scripting and concepts such as smart contracts in future posts. This post concentrates on explaining the nuts-and-bolts of the Bitcoin protocol. To understand the post, you need to be comfortable with public key cryptography, and with the closely related idea of digital signatures. Ill also assume youre familiar with cryptographic hashing. None of this is especially difficult. The basic ideas can be taught in freshman university mathematics or computer science classes. The ideas are beautiful, so if youre not familiar with them, I recommend taking a few hours to get familiar.

It may seem surprising that Bitcoins basis is cryptography. Isnt Bitcoin a currency, not a way of sending secret messages? In fact, the problems Bitcoin needs to solve are largely about securing transactions making sure people cant steal from one another, or impersonate one another, and so on. In the world of atoms we achieve security with devices such as locks, safes, signatures, and bank vaults. In the world of bits we achieve this kind of security with cryptography. And thats why Bitcoin is at heart a cryptographic protocol.

My strategy in the post is to build Bitcoin up in stages. Ill begin by explaining a very simple digital currency, based on ideas that are almost obvious. Well call that currency Infocoin, to distinguish it from Bitcoin. Of course, our first version of Infocoin will have many deficiencies, and so well go through several iterations of Infocoin, with each iteration introducing just one or two simple new ideas. After several such iterations, well arrive at the full Bitcoin protocol. We will have reinvented Bitcoin!

This strategy is slower than if I explained the entire Bitcoin protocol in one shot. But while you can understand the mechanics of Bitcoin through such a one-shot explanation, it would be difficult to understand why Bitcoin is designed the way it is. The advantage of the slower iterative explanation is that it gives us a much sharper understanding of each element of Bitcoin.

Finally, I should mention that Im a relative newcomer to Bitcoin. Ive been following it loosely since 2011 (and cryptocurrencies since the late 1990s), but only got seriously into the details of the Bitcoin protocol earlier this year. So Id certainly appreciate corrections of any misapprehensions on my part. Also in the post Ive included a number of problems for the author notes to myself about questions that came up during the writing. You may find these interesting, but you can also skip them entirely without losing track of the main text.

So how can we design a digital currency?

On the face of it, a digital currency sounds impossible. Suppose some person lets call her Alice has some digital money which she wants to spend. If Alice can use a string of bits as money, how can we prevent her from using the same bit string over and over, thus minting an infinite supply of money? Or, if we can somehow solve that problem, how can we prevent someone else forging such a string of bits, and using that to steal from Alice?

These are just two of the many problems that must be overcome in order to use information as money.

As a first version of Infocoin, lets find a way that Alice can use a string of bits as a (very primitive and incomplete) form of money, in a way that gives her at least some protection against forgery. Suppose Alice wants to give another person, Bob, an infocoin. To do this, Alice writes down the message I, Alice, am giving Bob one infocoin. She then digitally signs the message using a private cryptographic key, and announces the signed string of bits to the entire world.

(By the way, Im using capitalized Infocoin to refer to the protocol and general concept, and lowercase infocoin to refer to specific denominations of the currency. A similar useage is common, though not universal, in the Bitcoin world.)

This isnt terribly impressive as a prototype digital currency! But it does have some virtues. Anyone in the world (including Bob) can use Alices public key to verify that Alice really was the person who signed the message I, Alice, am giving Bob one infocoin. No-one else could have created that bit string, and so Alice cant turn around and say No, I didnt mean to give Bob an infocoin. So the protocol establishes that Alice truly intends to give Bob one infocoin. The same fact no-one else could compose such a signed message also gives Alice some limited protection from forgery. Of course, after Alice has published her message its possible for other people to duplicate the message, so in that sense forgery is possible. But its not possible from scratch. These two properties establishment of intent on Alices part, and the limited protection from forgery are genuinely notable features of this protocol.

I havent (quite) said exactly what digital money is in this protocol. To make this explicit: its just the message itself, i.e., the string of bits representing the digitally signed message I, Alice, am giving Bob one infocoin. Later protocols will be similar, in that all our forms of digital money will be just more and more elaborate messages [1].

A problem with the first version of Infocoin is that Alice could keep sending Bob the same signed message over and over. Suppose Bob receives ten copies of the signed message I, Alice, am giving Bob one infocoin. Does that mean Alice sent Bob ten different infocoins? Was her message accidentally duplicated? Perhaps she was trying to trick Bob into believing that she had given him ten different infocoins, when the message only proves to the world that she intends to transfer one infocoin.

What wed like is a way of making infocoins unique. They need a label or serial number. Alice would sign the message I, Alice, am giving Bob one infocoin, with serial number 8740348. Then, later, Alice could sign the message I, Alice, am giving Bob one infocoin, with serial number 8770431, and Bob (and everyone else) would know that a different infocoin was being transferred.

To make this scheme work we need a trusted source of serial numbers for the infocoins. One way to create such a source is to introduce a bank. This bank would provide serial numbers for infocoins, keep track of who has which infocoins, and verify that transactions really are legitimate,

In more detail, lets suppose Alice goes into the bank, and says I want to withdraw one infocoin from my account. The bank reduces her account balance by one infocoin, and assigns her a new, never-before used serial number, lets say 1234567. Then, when Alice wants to transfer her infocoin to Bob, she signs the message I, Alice, am giving Bob one infocoin, with serial number 1234567. But Bob doesnt just accept the infocoin. Instead, he contacts the bank, and verifies that: (a) the infocoin with that serial number belongs to Alice; and (b) Alice hasnt already spent the infocoin. If both those things are true, then Bob tells the bank he wants to accept the infocoin, and the bank updates their records to show that the infocoin with that serial number is now in Bobs possession, and no longer belongs to Alice.

This last solution looks pretty promising. However, it turns out that we can do something much more ambitious. We can eliminate the bank entirely from the protocol. This changes the nature of the currency considerably. It means that there is no longer any single organization in charge of the currency. And when you think about the enormous power a central bank has control over the money supply thats a pretty huge change.

The idea is to make it so everyone (collectively) is the bank. In particular, well assume that everyone using Infocoin keeps a complete record of which infocoins belong to which person. You can think of this as a shared public ledger showing all Infocoin transactions. Well call this ledger the block chain, since thats what the complete record will be called in Bitcoin, once we get to it.

Now, suppose Alice wants to transfer an infocoin to Bob. She signs the message I, Alice, am giving Bob one infocoin, with serial number 1234567, and gives the signed message to Bob. Bob can use his copy of the block chain to check that, indeed, the infocoin is Alices to give. If that checks out then he broadcasts both Alices message and his acceptance of the transaction to the entire network, and everyone updates their copy of the block chain.

We still have the where do serial number come from problem, but that turns out to be pretty easy to solve, and so I will defer it to later, in the discussion of Bitcoin. A more challenging problem is that this protocol allows Alice to cheat by double spending her infocoin. She sends the signed message I, Alice, am giving Bob one infocoin, with serial number 1234567 to Bob, and the messageI, Alice, am giving Charlie one infocoin, with [the same] serial number 1234567 to Charlie. Both Bob and Charlie use their copy of the block chain to verify that the infocoin is Alices to spend. Provided they do this verification at nearly the same time (before theyve had a chance to hear from one another), both will find that, yes, the block chain shows the coin belongs to Alice. And so they will both accept the transaction, and also broadcast their acceptance of the transaction. Now theres a problem. How should other people update their block chains? There may be no easy way to achieve a consistent shared ledger of transactions. And even if everyone can agree on a consistent way to update their block chains, there is still the problem that either Bob or Charlie will be cheated.

At first glance double spending seems difficult for Alice to pull off. After all, if Alice sends the message first to Bob, then Bob can verify the message, and tell everyone else in the network (including Charlie) to update their block chain. Once that has happened, Charlie would no longer be fooled by Alice. So there is most likely only a brief period of time in which Alice can double spend. However, its obviously undesirable to have any such a period of time. Worse, there are techniques Alice could use to make that period longer. She could, for example, use network traffic analysis to find times when Bob and Charlie are likely to have a lot of latency in communication. Or perhaps she could do something to deliberately disrupt their communications. If she can slow communication even a little that makes her task of double spending much easier.

How can we address the problem of double spending? The obvious solution is that when Alice sends Bob an infocoin, Bob shouldnt try to verify the transaction alone. Rather, he should broadcast the possible transaction to the entire network of Infocoin users, and ask them to help determine whether the transaction is legitimate. If they collectively decide that the transaction is okay, then Bob can accept the infocoin, and everyone will update their block chain. This type of protocol can help prevent double spending, since if Alice tries to spend her infocoin with both Bob and Charlie, other people on the network will notice, and network users will tell both Bob and Charlie that there is a problem with the transaction, and the transaction shouldnt go through.

In more detail, lets suppose Alice wants to give Bob an infocoin. As before, she signs the message I, Alice, am giving Bob one infocoin, with serial number 1234567, and gives the signed message to Bob. Also as before, Bob does a sanity check, using his copy of the block chain to check that, indeed, the coin currently belongs to Alice. But at that point the protocol is modified. Bob doesnt just go ahead and accept the transaction. Instead, he broadcasts Alices message to the entire network. Other members of the network check to see whether Alice owns that infocoin. If so, they broadcast the message Yes, Alice owns infocoin 1234567, it can now be transferred to Bob. Once enough people have broadcast that message, everyone updates their block chain to show that infocoin 1234567 now belongs to Bob, and the transaction is complete.

This protocol has many imprecise elements at present. For instance, what does it mean to say once enough people have broadcast that message? What exactly does enough mean here? It cant mean everyone in the network, since we dont a priori know who is on the Infocoin network. For the same reason, it cant mean some fixed fraction of users in the network. We wont try to make these ideas precise right now. Instead, in the next section Ill point out a serious problem with the approach as described. Fixing that problem will at the same time have the pleasant side effect of making the ideas above much more precise.

Suppose Alice wants to double spend in the network-based protocol I just described. She could do this by taking over the Infocoin network. Lets suppose she uses an automated system to set up a large number of separate identities, lets say a billion, on the Infocoin network. As before, she tries to double spend the same infocoin with both Bob and Charlie. But when Bob and Charlie ask the network to validate their respective transactions, Alices sock puppet identities swamp the network, announcing to Bob that theyve validated his transaction, and to Charlie that theyve validated his transaction, possibly fooling one or both into accepting the transaction.

Theres a clever way of avoiding this problem, using an idea known as proof-of-work. The idea is counterintuitive and involves a combination of two ideas: (1) to (artificially) make it computationally costly for network users to validate transactions; and (2) to reward them for trying to help validate transactions. The reward is used so that people on the network will try to help validate transactions, even though thats now been made a computationally costly process. The benefit of making it costly to validate transactions is that validation can no longer be influenced by the number of network identities someone controls, but only by the total computational power they can bring to bear on validation. As well see, with some clever design we can make it so a cheater would need enormous computational resources to cheat, making it impractical.

Thats the gist of proof-of-work. But to really understand proof-of-work, we need to go through the details.

Suppose Alice broadcasts to the network the news that I, Alice, am giving Bob one infocoin, with serial number 1234567.

As other people on the network hear that message, each adds it to a queue of pending transactions that theyve been told about, but which havent yet been approved by the network. For instance, another network user named David might have the following queue of pending transactions:

I, Tom, am giving Sue one infocoin, with serial number 1201174.

I, Sydney, am giving Cynthia one infocoin, with serial number 1295618.

I, Alice, am giving Bob one infocoin, with serial number 1234567.

David checks his copy of the block chain, and can see that each transaction is valid. He would like to help out by broadcasting news of that validity to the entire network.

However, before doing that, as part of the validation protocol David is required to solve a hard computational puzzle the proof-of-work. Without the solution to that puzzle, the rest of the network wont accept his validation of the transaction.

What puzzle does David need to solve? To explain that, let be a fixed hash function known by everyone in the network its built into the protocol. Bitcoin uses the well-known SHA-256 hash function, but any cryptographically secure hash function will do. Lets give Davids queue of pending transactions a label, , just so its got a name we can refer to. Suppose David appends a number (called the nonce) to and hashes the combination. For example, if we use Hello, world! (obviously this is not a list of transactions, just a string used for illustrative purposes) and the nonce then (output is in hexadecimal)

The puzzle David has to solve the proof-of-work is to find a nonce such that when we append to and hash the combination the output hash begins with a long run of zeroes. The puzzle can be made more or less difficult by varying the number of zeroes required to solve the puzzle. A relatively simple proof-of-work puzzle might require just three or four zeroes at the start of the hash, while a more difficult proof-of-work puzzle might require a much longer run of zeros, say 15 consecutive zeroes. In either case, the above attempt to find a suitable nonce, with , is a failure, since the output doesnt begin with any zeroes at all. Trying doesnt work either:

We can keep trying different values for the nonce, . Finally, at we obtain:

This nonce gives us a string of four zeroes at the beginning of the output of the hash. This will be enough to solve a simple proof-of-work puzzle, but not enough to solve a more difficult proof-of-work puzzle.

What makes this puzzle hard to solve is the fact that the output from a cryptographic hash function behaves like a random number: change the input even a tiny bit and the output from the hash function changes completely, in a way thats hard to predict. So if we want the output hash value to begin with 10 zeroes, say, then David will need, on average, to try different values for before he finds a suitable nonce. Thats a pretty challenging task, requiring lots of computational power.

Obviously, its possible to make this puzzle more or less difficult to solve by requiring more or fewer zeroes in the output from the hash function. In fact, the Bitcoin protocol gets quite a fine level of control over the difficulty of the puzzle, by using a slight variation on the proof-of-work puzzle described above. Instead of requiring leading zeroes, the Bitcoin proof-of-work puzzle requires the hash of a blocks header to be lower than or equal to a number known as the target. This target is automatically adjusted to ensure that a Bitcoin block takes, on average, about ten minutes to validate.

(In practice there is a sizeable randomness in how long it takes to validate a block sometimes a new block is validated in just a minute or two, other times it may take 20 minutes or even longer. Its straightforward to modify the Bitcoin protocol so that the time to validation is much more sharply peaked around ten minutes. Instead of solving a single puzzle, we can require that multiple puzzles be solved; with some careful design it is possible to considerably reduce the variance in the time to validate a block of transactions.)

Alright, lets suppose David is lucky and finds a suitable nonce, . Celebration! (Hell be rewarded for finding the nonce, as described below). He broadcasts the block of transactions hes approving to the network, together with the value for . Other participants in the Infocoin network can verify that is a valid solution to the proof-of-work puzzle. And they then update their block chains to include the new block of transactions.

For the proof-of-work idea to have any chance of succeeding, network users need an incentive to help validate transactions. Without such an incentive, they have no reason to expend valuable computational power, merely to help validate other peoples transactions. And if network users are not willing to expend that power, then the whole system wont work. The solution to this problem is to reward people who help validate transactions. In particular, suppose we reward whoever successfully validates a block of transactions by crediting them with some infocoins. Provided the infocoin reward is large enough that will give them an incentive to participate in validation.

In the Bitcoin protocol, this validation process is called mining. For each block of transactions validated, the successful miner receives a bitcoin reward. Initially, this was set to be a 50 bitcoin reward. But for every 210,000 validated blocks (roughly, once every four years) the reward halves. This has happened just once, to date, and so the current reward for mining a block is 25 bitcoins. This halving in the rate will continue every four years until the year 2140 CE. At that point, the reward for mining will drop below bitcoins per block. bitcoins is actually the minimal unit of Bitcoin, and is known as a satoshi. So in 2140 CE the total supply of bitcoins will cease to increase. However, that wont eliminate the incentive to help validate transactions. Bitcoin also makes it possible to set aside some currency in a transaction as a transaction fee, which goes to the miner who helps validate it. In the early days of Bitcoin transaction fees were mostly set to zero, but as Bitcoin has gained in popularity, transaction fees have gradually risen, and are now a substantial additional incentive on top of the 25 bitcoin reward for mining a block.

You can think of proof-of-work as a competition to approve transactions. Each entry in the competition costs a little bit of computing power. A miners chance of winning the competition is (roughly, and with some caveats) equal to the proportion of the total computing power that they control. So, for instance, if a miner controls one percent of the computing power being used to validate Bitcoin transactions, then they have roughly a one percent chance of winning the competition. So provided a lot of computing power is being brought to bear on the competition, a dishonest miner is likely to have only a relatively small chance to corrupt the validation process, unless they expend a huge amount of computing resources.

Of course, while its encouraging that a dishonest party has only a relatively small chance to corrupt the block chain, thats not enough to give us confidence in the currency. In particular, we havent yet conclusively addressed the issue of double spending.

Ill analyse double spending shortly. Before doing that, I want to fill in an important detail in the description of Infocoin. Wed ideally like the Infocoin network to agree upon the order in which transactions have occurred. If we dont have such an ordering then at any given moment it may not be clear who owns which infocoins. To help do this well require that new blocks always include a pointer to the last block validated in the chain, in addition to the list of transactions in the block. (The pointer is actually just a hash of the previous block). So typically the block chain is just a linear chain of blocks of transactions, one after the other, with later blocks each containing a pointer to the immediately prior block:

Occasionally, a fork will appear in the block chain. This can happen, for instance, if by chance two miners happen to validate a block of transactions near-simultaneously both broadcast their newly-validated block out to the network, and some people update their block chain one way, and others update their block chain the other way:

This causes exactly the problem were trying to avoid its no longer clear in what order transactions have occurred, and it may not be clear who owns which infocoins. Fortunately, theres a simple idea that can be used to remove any forks. The rule is this: if a fork occurs, people on the network keep track of both forks. But at any given time, miners only work to extend whichever fork is longest in their copy of the block chain.

Suppose, for example, that we have a fork in which some miners receive block A first, and some miners receive block B first. Those miners who receive block A first will continue mining along that fork, while the others will mine along fork B. Lets suppose that the miners working on fork B are the next to successfully mine a block:

After they receive news that this has happened, the miners working on fork A will notice that fork B is now longer, and will switch to working on that fork. Presto, in short order work on fork A will cease, and everyone will be working on the same linear chain, and block A can be ignored. Of course, any still-pending transactions in A will still be pending in the queues of the miners working on fork B, and so all transactions will eventually be validated.

Likewise, it may be that the miners working on fork A are the first to extend their fork. In that case work on fork B will quickly cease, and again we have a single linear chain.

No matter what the outcome, this process ensures that the block chain has an agreed-upon time ordering of the blocks. In Bitcoin proper, a transaction is not considered confirmed until: (1) it is part of a block in the longest fork, and (2) at least 5 blocks follow it in the longest fork. In this case we say that the transaction has 6 confirmations. This gives the network time to come to an agreed-upon the ordering of the blocks. Well also use this strategy for Infocoin.

With the time-ordering now understood, lets return to think about what happens if a dishonest party tries to double spend. Suppose Alice tries to double spend with Bob and Charlie. One possible approach is for her to try to validate a block that includes both transactions. Assuming she has one percent of the computing power, she will occasionally get lucky and validate the block by solving the proof-of-work. Unfortunately for Alice, the double spending will be immediately spotted by other people in the Infocoin network and rejected, despite solving the proof-of-work problem. So thats not something we need to worry about.

A more serious problem occurs if she broadcasts two separate transactions in which she spends the same infocoin with Bob and Charlie, respectively. She might, for example, broadcast one transaction to a subset of the miners, and the other transaction to another set of miners, hoping to get both transactions validated in this way. Fortunately, in this case, as weve seen, the network will eventually confirm one of these transactions, but not both. So, for instance, Bobs transaction might ultimately be confirmed, in which case Bob can go ahead confidently. Meanwhile, Charlie will see that his transaction has not been confirmed, and so will decline Alices offer. So this isnt a problem either. In fact, knowing that this will be the case, there is little reason for Alice to try this in the first place.

An important variant on double spending is if Alice = Bob, i.e., Alice tries to spend a coin with Charlie which she is also spending with herself (i.e., giving back to herself). This sounds like it ought to be easy to detect and deal with, but, of course, its easy on a network to set up multiple identities associated with the same person or organization, so this possibility needs to be considered. In this case, Alices strategy is to wait until Charlie accepts the infocoin, which happens after the transaction has been confirmed 6 times in the longest chain. She will then attempt to fork the chain before the transaction with Charlie, adding a block which includes a transaction in which she pays herself:

Unfortunately for Alice, its now very difficult for her to catch up with the longer fork. Other miners wont want to help her out, since theyll be working on the longer fork. And unless Alice is able to solve the proof-of-work at least as fast as everyone else in the network combined roughly, that means controlling more than fifty percent of the computing power then she will just keep falling further and further behind. Of course, she might get lucky. We can, for example, imagine a scenario in which Alice controls one percent of the computing power, but happens to get lucky and finds six extra blocks in a row, before the rest of the network has found any extra blocks. In this case, she might be able to get ahead, and get control of the block chain. But this particular event will occur with probability . A more general analysis along these lines shows that Alices probability of ever catching up is infinitesimal, unless she is able to solve proof-of-work puzzles at a rate approaching all other miners combined.

Of course, this is not a rigorous security analysis showing that Alice cannot double spend. Its merely an informal plausibility argument. The original paper introducing Bitcoin did not, in fact, contain a rigorous security analysis, only informal arguments along the lines Ive presented here. The security community is still analysing Bitcoin, and trying to understand possible vulnerabilities. You can see some of this research listed here, and I mention a few related problems in the Problems for the author below. At this point I think its fair to say that the jury is still out on how secure Bitcoin is.

The proof-of-work and mining ideas give rise to many questions. How much reward is enough to persuade people to mine? How does the change in supply of infocoins affect the Infocoin economy? Will Infocoin mining end up concentrated in the hands of a few, or many? If its just a few, doesnt that endanger the security of the system? Presumably transaction fees will eventually equilibriate wont this introduce an unwanted source of friction, and make small transactions less desirable? These are all great questions, but beyond the scope of this post. I may come back to the questions (in the context of Bitcoin) in a future post. For now, well stick to our focus on understanding how the Bitcoin protocol works.

Lets move away from Infocoin, and describe the actual Bitcoin protocol. There are a few new ideas here, but with one exception (discussed below) theyre mostly obvious modifications to Infocoin.

To use Bitcoin in practice, you first install a wallet program on your computer. To give you a sense of what that means, heres a screenshot of a wallet called Multbit. You can see the Bitcoin balance on the left 0.06555555 Bitcoins, or about 70 dollars at the exchange rate on the day I took this screenshot and on the right two recent transactions, which deposited those 0.06555555 Bitcoins:

Suppose youre a merchant who has set up an online store, and youve decided to allow people to pay using Bitcoin. What you do is tell your wallet program to generate a Bitcoin address. In response, it will generate a public / private key pair, and then hash the public key to form your Bitcoin address:

You then send your Bitcoin address to the person who wants to buy from you. You could do this in email, or even put the address up publicly on a webpage. This is safe, since the address is merely a hash of your public key, which can safely be known by the world anyway. (Ill return later to the question of why the Bitcoin address is a hash, and not just the public key.)

The person who is going to pay you then generates a transaction. Lets take a look at the data from an actual transaction transferring bitcoins. Whats shown below is very nearly the raw data. Its changed in three ways: (1) the data has been deserialized; (2) line numbers have been added, for ease of reference; and (3) Ive abbreviated various hashes and public keys, just putting in the first six hexadecimal digits of each, when in reality they are much longer. Heres the data:

Lets go through this, line by line.

Line 1 contains the hash of the remainder of the transaction, 7c4025…, expressed in hexadecimal. This is used as an identifier for the transaction.

Line 2 tells us that this is a transaction in version 1 of the Bitcoin protocol.

Lines 3 and 4 tell us that the transaction has one input and one output, respectively. Ill talk below about transactions with more inputs and outputs, and why thats useful.

Line 5 contains the value for lock_time, which can be used to control when a transaction is finalized. For most Bitcoin transactions being carried out today the lock_time is set to 0, which means the transaction is finalized immediately.

Line 6 tells us the size (in bytes) of the transaction. Note that its not the monetary amount being transferred! That comes later.

Lines 7 through 11 define the input to the transaction. In particular, lines 8 through 10 tell us that the input is to be taken from the output from an earlier transaction, with the given hash, which is expressed in hexadecimal as 2007ae…. The n=0 tells us its to be the first output from that transaction; well see soon how multiple outputs (and inputs) from a transaction work, so dont worry too much about this for now. Line 11 contains the signature of the person sending the money, 304502…, followed by a space, and then the corresponding public key, 04b2d…. Again, these are both in hexadecimal.

One thing to note about the input is that theres nothing explicitly specifying how many bitcoins from the previous transaction should be spent in this transaction. In fact, all the bitcoins from the n=0th output of the previous transaction are spent. So, for example, if the n=0th output of the earlier transaction was 2 bitcoins, then 2 bitcoins will be spent in this transaction. This seems like an inconvenient restriction like trying to buy bread with a 20 dollar note, and not being able to break the note down. The solution, of course, is to have a mechanism for providing change. This can be done using transactions with multiple inputs and outputs, which well discuss in the next section.

Lines 12 through 14 define the output from the transaction. In particular, line 13 tells us the value of the output, 0.319 bitcoins. Line 14 is somewhat complicated. The main thing to note is that the string a7db6f… is the Bitcoin address of the intended recipient of the funds (written in hexadecimal). In fact, Line 14 is actually an expression in Bitcoins scripting language. Im not going to describe that language in detail in this post, the important thing to take away now is just that a7db6f… is the Bitcoin address.

You can now see, by the way, how Bitcoin addresses the question I swept under the rug in the last section: where do Bitcoin serial numbers come from? In fact, the role of the serial number is played by transaction hashes. In the transaction above, for example, the recipient is receiving 0.319 Bitcoins, which come out of the first output of an earlier transaction with hash 2007ae… (line 9). If you go and look in the block chain for that transaction, youd see that its output comes from a still earlier transaction. And so on.

There are two clever things about using transaction hashes instead of serial numbers. First, in Bitcoin theres not really any separate, persistent coins at all, just a long series of transactions in the block chain. Its a clever idea to realize that you dont need persistent coins, and can just get by with a ledger of transactions. Second, by operating in this way we remove the need for any central authority issuing serial numbers. Instead, the serial numbers can be self-generated, merely by hashing the transaction.

In fact, its possible to keep following the chain of transactions further back in history. Ultimately, this process must terminate. This can happen in one of two ways. The first possibilitty is that youll arrive at the very first Bitcoin transaction, contained in the so-called Genesis block. This is a special transaction, having no inputs, but a 50 Bitcoin output. In other words, this transaction establishes an initial money supply. The Genesis block is treated separately by Bitcoin clients, and I wont get into the details here, although its along similar lines to the transaction above. You can see the deserialized raw data here, and read about the Genesis block here.

The second possibility when you follow a chain of transactions back in time is that eventually youll arrive at a so-called coinbase transaction. With the exception of the Genesis block, every block of transactions in the block chain starts with a special coinbase transaction. This is the transaction rewarding the miner who validated that block of transactions. It uses a similar but not identical format to the transaction above. I wont go through the format in detail, but if you want to see an example, see here. You can read a little more about coinbase transactions here.

Something I havent been precise about above is what exactly is being signed by the digital signature in line 11. The obvious thing to do is for the payer to sign the whole transaction (apart from the transaction hash, which, of course, must be generated later). Currently, this is not what is done some pieces of the transaction are omitted. This makes some pieces of the transaction malleable, i.e., they can be changed later. However, this malleability does not include the amounts being paid out, senders and recipients, which cant be changed later. I must admit I havent dug down into the details here. I gather that this malleability is under discussion in the Bitcoin developer community, and there are efforts afoot to reduce or eliminate this malleability.

In the last section I described how a transaction with a single input and a single output works. In practice, its often extremely convenient to create Bitcoin transactions with multiple inputs or multiple outputs. Ill talk below about why this can be useful. But first lets take a look at the data from an actual transaction:

Lets go through the data, line by line. Its very similar to the single-input-single-output transaction, so Ill do this pretty quickly.

Line 1 contains the hash of the remainder of the transaction. This is used as an identifier for the transaction.

Line 2 tells us that this is a transaction in version 1 of the Bitcoin protocol.

Lines 3 and 4 tell us that the transaction has three inputs and two outputs, respectively.

Line 5 contains the lock_time. As in the single-input-single-output case this is set to 0, which means the transaction is finalized immediately.

Line 6 tells us the size of the transaction in bytes.

Lines 7 through 19 define a list of the inputs to the transaction. Each corresponds to an output from a previous Bitcoin transaction.

The first input is defined in lines 8 through 11.

In particular, lines 8 through 10 tell us that the input is to be taken from the n=0th output from the transaction with hash 3beabc…. Line 11 contains the signature, followed by a space, and then the public key of the person sending the bitcoins.

Lines 12 through 15 define the second input, with a similar format to lines 8 through 11. And lines 16 through 19 define the third input.

Lines 20 through 24 define a list containing the two outputs from the transaction.

The first output is defined in lines 21 and 22. Line 21 tells us the value of the output, 0.01068000 bitcoins. As before, line 22 is an expression in Bitcoins scripting language. The main thing to take away here is that the string e8c30622… is the Bitcoin address of the intended recipient of the funds.

The second output is defined lines 23 and 24, with a similar format to the first output.

More here:
How the Bitcoin protocol actually works | DDI

Decoding Illuminati Symbolism: Triangles, Pyramids and the Sun

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Decoding Illuminati Symbolism: Triangles, Pyramids and the Sun
Jul 222015
 

Psychiatrist Carl Jung once said about symbols that their purpose was to give a meaning to the life of man.Catapulted into the mainstream by Jay-Zs infamous Roc-diamond (which only looks likea triangle, although he has said that its a four sided diamond for the Rock in Roc-A-Fella records), the symbolism of the triangle and pyramid are key players in the realm of conspiracy theories and Illuminati symbolism. You can find these symbols in most any big-industry; music, film, corporate logos, etc. But why do we see these symbols so often? What do they truly mean?

The symbol of the triangle is commonly held to have a much deeper and esoteric meaning than the basic geometric shape we common-folk see. The symbolism, or meaning, of the triangle is usually viewed as one of spiritual importance. The Christian faith views the three sides of the triangle as the Holy Trinity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Ancient Egyptians believed the right sided triangle represented their form of the Trinity with the hypotenuse being the child god Horus, the upright side being the sacred feminine goddess Isis, and the base is the male Osiris.

This concept was kept in a sort of chain of custody when the Greek mathematician Pythagoras learned much from the ancient Egyptians and then applied it to geometry. He even went as far as to set up one of the first schools of mystery with a religious sect that practiced his philosophy, mathematics, and conferring of esoteric principles. In theory, the secret societies, cults, occultists, and other nefarious groups, collectively known as the Illuminati, maintain all of this knowledge and use it in a much different manner.

To understand why all of this matters, you must learn about the belief system of the occult. A researcher named Marty Leeds wrote books on mathematics and the universal language that nature uses to communicate to us. He believes that various languages are sacred and have a basis in ancient symbols through mathematics. I find his argument compelling, and Ive tried to incorporate some its logic into this post, as I find it important to argument.

The three sides of a triangle represent the number 3, and this concept is used in gematria, the ancient Babylonian/Hebrew numerology practice that assigns numbers to words or letters (and also other mystical schools of thought). The number 3 is representative of the spirit realm (or the Heavens), while in contrast, the number 4 represents the physical realm (the material, three-dimensional world we can relate to). The number 3 is a number of the divine, showing the union of male and female that create a third being. Its the number of manifestation; to make something happen.

Another analogy to consider is that the upright triangle points towards the Heavens, while the inverted points to the Earth (or Hell if you want to get all fire and brimstone with it).

Read more:
Decoding Illuminati Symbolism: Triangles, Pyramids and the Sun

 Posted by at 7:55 pm  Tagged with:

Illuminati NWO explained 2015 with Gary Harbinger – Pope, Climate Change, Aliens, Christ F – Video

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Illuminati NWO explained 2015 with Gary Harbinger – Pope, Climate Change, Aliens, Christ F – Video
Apr 122015
 



Illuminati NWO explained 2015 with Gary Harbinger – Pope, Climate Change, Aliens, Christ F
hope you guys can glean from this post two.

By: Evangeline France

View post:
Illuminati NWO explained 2015 with Gary Harbinger – Pope, Climate Change, Aliens, Christ F – Video

Harper to meet with NATO secretary general

 NATO  Comments Off on Harper to meet with NATO secretary general
Apr 052015
 

By The Canadian Press

OTTAWA – NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is making his first visit to Canada this week, with the subject of how to address rising tensions with Russia likely to feature high on the agenda.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is scheduled to meet with Stoltenberg on Monday, and a Canadian source close to the meetings said the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) would be a major topic of discussion.

Harper plans to ask the House of Commons to extend and expand Canada’s military involvement this week.

But NATO has had no formal role to date in fighting ISIL. Russian President Vladmir Putin’s recent moves, including mobilizing 45,000 northern troops for military exercises last week, have been the alliance’s major preoccupation.

On Sunday, NATO’s supreme allied commander Gen. Philip Breedlove told a news conference that the west should consider sending defensive weapons into Ukraine. The UN has said 6,000 people have died in the country over the past year.

The United States has been actively considering sending lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine to help that country defend itself against Russian-backed fighters. Germany has urged caution, warning that supplying Ukraine could escalate tensions.

Defence Minister Jason Kenney has dropped broad hints that Canada could be poised to provide Ukraine with more military assistance. He has said cabinet is considering whether Canada should join the U.S. and Britain in a military training mission to help Ukrainian troops.

Stoltenberg, a former Norwegian cabinet minister who took up the post last October, has warned that snap Russian military exercises and less communication between Russia and NATO could have dire consequences.

“It is important we keep the channels for military communication open to have as much transparency as possible to avoid misunderstandings and to make sure that incidents don’t spiral and get out of control,” Stoltenberg told the Guardian newspaper last week.

See the rest here:
Harper to meet with NATO secretary general

 Posted by at 4:49 am  Tagged with:

WordPress WordPress SEO by Yoast WordPress Plugins

 SEO  Comments Off on WordPress WordPress SEO by Yoast WordPress Plugins
Apr 052015
 

WordPress out of the box is already technically quite a good platform for SEO, this was true when Joost wrote his original WordPress SEO article in 2008 (and updated every few months) and it’s still true today, but that doesn’t mean you can’t improve it further! This plugin is written from the ground up by Joost de Valk and his team at Yoast to improve your site’s SEO on all needed aspects. While this WordPress SEO plugin goes the extra mile to take care of all the technical optimization, more on that below, it first and foremost helps you write better content. WordPress SEO forces you to choose a focus keyword when you’re writing your articles, and then makes sure you use that focus keyword everywhere.

Premium Support The Yoast team does not provide support for the WordPress SEO plugin on the WordPress.org forums. One on one email support is available to people who bought the Premium WordPress SEO plugin only. Note that the Premium SEO plugin has several extra features too so it might be well worth your investment!

You should also check out the Local SEO, News SEO and Video SEO extensions to WordPress SEO, these of course come with support too.

Take a look at the explanation of the General tab in WordPress SEO, this is one of the 13 tutorial videos included in the Premium version of WordPress SEO:

Bug Reports Bug reports for WordPress SEO are welcomed on GitHub. Please note GitHub is not a support forum and issues that aren’t properly qualified as bugs will be closed.

Using the snippet preview you can see a rendering of what your post or page will look like in the search results, whether your title is too long or too short and your meta description makes sense in the context of a search result. This way the plugin will help you not only increase rankings but also increase the click through for organic search results.

The WordPress SEO plugins Page Analysis functionality checks simple things you’re bound to forget. It checks, for instance, if you have images in your post and whether they have an alt tag containing the focus keyword for that post. It also checks whether your posts are long enough, if you’ve written a meta description and if that meta description contains your focus keyword, if you’ve used any subheadings within your post, etc. etc.

The plugin also allows you to write meta titles and descriptions for all your category, tag and custom taxonomy archives, giving you the option to further optimize those pages.

Combined, this plugin makes sure that your content is the type of content search engines will love!

While out of the box WordPress is pretty good for SEO, it needs some tweaks here and there. This WordPress SEO plugin guides you through some of the settings needed, for instance by reminding you to enable pretty permalinks. But it also goes beyond that, by automatically optimizing and inserting the meta tags and link elements that Google and other search engines like so much:

See more here:
WordPress WordPress SEO by Yoast WordPress Plugins

The SEO-Hater’s Guide to Better Search Rankings – Forbes

 SEO  Comments Off on The SEO-Hater’s Guide to Better Search Rankings – Forbes
Apr 012015
 

Do the letters S, E, and O strike fear in your heart? When people talk about keyword research or link building, do you want to hide under a rock?

Not everyone is a fan of SEO, and thats okay.Many business owners are (understandably) more interested in performing core tasks related to their business; and while most would love to have more search engine traffic, the specifics of how to get it may feel like a bit of a mystery.

This post will give even the most SEO-indifferent or SEO-hating business owners a palatable strategy for improving their search rankings. You dont have to love it you just have to do it!

In my experience and as Ive been doing a lot of SEO recently on my free invoicing software, people who think they hate SEO often have a skewed idea of what SEO actually is. They think its all very technical (tootechnical), and that theres some kind of secret SEO formula they need to learn. And not only do they not havetimeto learn this formula, they have nointerestin learning it.

I get it. So let me give you a very short, to-the-point overview of what SEO really is, and why its not worth hating:SEO is simply letting the search engines know what your content is about.Thats it. While there are technical elements to it, almost anyone can understand and implement the basics. And the basics are often enough to get you increased search rankings.

Bottom line: Stop avoiding SEO. You can do this. The basics are just that: basic.

Assuming you now hate SEO slightly less, its time to move on to step 2.

There are a number of big mistakes that can pretty much ensure you wont get search traffic. Before we look at the stuff youcando, lets make sure youre not doing the stuff youshouldntdo. Take a look through this list to make sure youre not breaking any of these cardinal sins of SEO:

I know you dont like the sounds of this. Keywords sound technical, and we dont like technical. But keywords are actually just the words and phrases on your site that you want to rank for.

These might include:

See the original post here:
The SEO-Hater’s Guide to Better Search Rankings – Forbes

The SEO-Hater's Guide to Better Search Rankings

 SEO  Comments Off on The SEO-Hater's Guide to Better Search Rankings
Apr 012015
 

Do the letters S, E, and O strike fear in your heart? When people talk about keyword research or link building, do you want to hide under a rock?

Not everyone is a fan of SEO, and thats okay.Many business owners are (understandably) more interested in performing core tasks related to their business; and while most would love to have more search engine traffic, the specifics of how to get it may feel like a bit of a mystery.

This post will give even the most SEO-indifferent or SEO-hating business owners a palatable strategy for improving their search rankings. You dont have to love it you just have to do it!

In my experience and as Ive been doing a lot of SEO recently on my free invoicing software, people who think they hate SEO often have a skewed idea of what SEO actually is. They think its all very technical (tootechnical), and that theres some kind of secret SEO formula they need to learn. And not only do they not havetimeto learn this formula, they have nointerestin learning it.

I get it. So let me give you a very short, to-the-point overview of what SEO really is, and why its not worth hating:SEO is simply letting the search engines know what your content is about.Thats it. While there are technical elements to it, almost anyone can understand and implement the basics. And the basics are often enough to get you increased search rankings.

Bottom line: Stop avoiding SEO. You can do this. The basics are just that: basic.

Assuming you now hate SEO slightly less, its time to move on to step 2.

There are a number of big mistakes that can pretty much ensure you wont get search traffic. Before we look at the stuff youcando, lets make sure youre not doing the stuff youshouldntdo. Take a look through this list to make sure youre not breaking any of these cardinal sins of SEO:

I know you dont like the sounds of this. Keywords sound technical, and we dont like technical. But keywords are actually just the words and phrases on your site that you want to rank for.

These might include:

See original here:
The SEO-Hater's Guide to Better Search Rankings

Strauss: Liberty University students say they were required to attend Ted Cruz speech

 Liberty  Comments Off on Strauss: Liberty University students say they were required to attend Ted Cruz speech
Mar 272015
 

Republican Sen Ted Cruz appeared earlier this week at Liberty University in Virginia to announce that he was running for president in 2016, becoming the first major candidate in the Democratic or Republican parties to formally declare. Cruz delivered the news at Liberty the largest Christian university in the world before a gathering of students. What you might not know about that gathering was that the students were required to attend. This post explains what happened and why. It was written by Alexandra Markovich, a 19-year-old student at Princeton University who is a member of the University Press Club, a selective group of undergraduate students who freelance for regional and national publications. Markovich is an intended major in the Woodrow Wilson School of International and Public Affairs with a focus in Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies.

By Alexandra Markovich

Ted Cruz became the first Republican candidate to officially announce his 2016 presidential campaign in front of an audience of 11,000 college students on March 23, 2015. The catch: they had to be there. Cruz made his announcement on Monday morning at Liberty University, where Convocation is mandatory to students living on campus at risk of a $10 fine for failing to attend.

As sophomore Luke Wittel walked through the doors of the Vines Center, home to Libertys mens and womens basketball teams, he was offered an American Flag, the first thing that made Wittel realize this was going to be more political rally than spiritual gathering. The American flags blended patriotism and support for Ted Cruz, Wittel said, in a way that made him nervous.

All Wittel could do to show his disagreement was not to take the flag. Wittel said that when he asked his RA if he could be excused and not be forced into apparent political association, he was sternly reminded of school policy. Throughout the hour-long Convocation, Wittel said he was not allowed to leave.

Liberty University is an evangelical university in Lynchburg, Virginia founded by the late pastor Jerry Falwell in 1971. A recent Washington Post article called Liberty the symbolic center of the GOP political-religious universe in recent years. The social conservative youth ticket will be an important card to punch in the GOP campaign.

Seeing the American flags handed out left Wittel with bitter feelings of political exploitation. Nothing makes you feel more like a pawn than being told to hold this and sit down, he said. But, Wittel sees logic behind holding the announcement at Liberty.

Link:
Strauss: Liberty University students say they were required to attend Ted Cruz speech

 Posted by at 7:45 pm  Tagged with:

Harper To Talk ISIL With NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg

 NATO  Comments Off on Harper To Talk ISIL With NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg
Mar 242015
 

OTTAWA – NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is making his first visit to Canada this week, with the subject of how to address rising tensions with Russia likely to feature high on the agenda.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is scheduled to meet with Stoltenberg on Monday, and a Canadian source close to the meetings said the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) would be a major topic of discussion.

Harper plans to ask the House of Commons to extend and expand Canada’s military involvement this week.

But NATO has had no formal role to date in fighting ISIL. Russian President Vladmir Putin’s recent moves, including mobilizing 45,000 northern troops for military exercises last week, have been the alliance’s major preoccupation.

On Sunday, NATO’s supreme allied commander Gen. Philip Breedlove told a news conference that the west should consider sending defensive weapons into Ukraine. The UN has said 6,000 people have died in the country over the past year.

The United States has been actively considering sending lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine to help that country defend itself against Russian-backed fighters. Germany has urged caution, warning that supplying Ukraine could escalate tensions.

Defence Minister Jason Kenney has dropped broad hints that Canada could be poised to provide Ukraine with more military assistance. He has said cabinet is considering whether Canada should join the U.S. and Britain in a military training mission to help Ukrainian troops.

Stoltenberg, a former Norwegian cabinet minister who took up the post last October, has warned that snap Russian military exercises and less communication between Russia and NATO could have dire consequences.

“It is important we keep the channels for military communication open to have as much transparency as possible to avoid misunderstandings and to make sure that incidents don’t spiral and get out of control,” Stoltenberg told the Guardian newspaper last week.

Continue reading here:
Harper To Talk ISIL With NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg

 Posted by at 1:53 am  Tagged with:

Nato head tells David Cameron: We are counting on your leadership

 NATO  Comments Off on Nato head tells David Cameron: We are counting on your leadership
Mar 132015
 

We appreciate the leadership that the UK shows in the Alliance, and we count on leadership also in the future, Mr Stoltenberg said.

In the same press release, Nato said he would be meeting Michael Fallon to ensure important decisions from the Wales summit last year were being implemented.

A central outcome of the summit was a promise for all European allies to recommit to spending 2 per cent of their GDP on defence a long-standing obligation.

At the time the Prime Minister called on those countries below the mark to meet the obligation within a decade and signed a pledge saying Britain would aim to continue to hit the 2 per cent mark.

In a separate development, Mr Cameron appeared to admit the difficulty in justifying why a government should protect aid spending during austerity while not ring-fencing defence.

Pushed by the Financial Times on how the Prime Minister could say defence was more about deployability of forces than raw spending numbers while enshrining legal aid spending in law, Mr Cameron reportedly said: Its a fair point.

No 10 spokesperson said of the meeting between Mr Cameron and Mr Stoltenberg: The Prime Minister explained that the UK would continue to meet the 2 per cent target this financial year and next, but decisions beyond this would be made in the next Spending Review.

The Secretary General said he appreciated the UKs leadership within the Alliance and that the Government was using its defence spending to focus on investment in new capabilities.”

Last month two former Nato heads warned that Mr Cameron will embolden Mr Putin and Islamic terrorists if he reneges on a commitment to spend two per cent of GDP on defence.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who left the post as Nato general secretary last year, and his predecessor Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said cutting defence after the election would strength Britains enemies.

Go here to read the rest:
Nato head tells David Cameron: We are counting on your leadership

 Posted by at 2:52 pm  Tagged with:

Cryptocurrency software bundled with BitTorrent triggers complaints

 Cryptocurrency  Comments Off on Cryptocurrency software bundled with BitTorrent triggers complaints
Mar 072015
 

After updating BitTorrent’s uTorrent, some users reported that mining software had appeared on their PCs without their consent

Some people who use uTorrent, the popular BitTorrent client, are up in arms over the presence of cryptocurrency mining software on their computers which they say was installed without their permission.

The mining software, made by the company Epic Scale, started appearing for some people earlier this week after they updated to the latest version of uTorrent, a program made by BitTorrent for downloading files. In forums online, users have likened the software to bloatware, as it taxes their computer processor without their consent. Cryptocurrency mining software is used to release bitcoins and other digital currencies by having computers persistently perform complex mathematical calculations.

Some uTorrent users have said their computers were slowing down and overheating due to the software, kicking their fans into overdrive. Others reported persistent pop-ups they couldn’t remove, or messages saying their computers were unable to connect to a server.

“When I arrived home this evening my PC was running at full tilt and practically blowing steam,” one user wrote on the site for FreeFixer, which makes a tool for removing unwanted software. A thread there has amassed dozens of complaints over the past couple of days.

Users said they received no notification that the software was being installed.

“The only reason I found out about it was that I was playing a game and it was running much slower than usual with constant hiccups,” one user wrote.

Users have reported similar complaints in a forum on uTorrent’s own site, according to news reports, but those threads have since been removed.

A spokesman for uTorrent maker BitTorrent said there is no silent install happening. Epic Scale is one of many partners that BitTorrent has that might provide installation offers during the install of uTorrent, and the installation is optional, BitTorrent said in a joint blog post with Epic Scale on Friday.

Still, BitTorrent is looking into the issue internally and with Epic Scale, BitTorrent said in the post. The company has received less than a dozen inquiries about the issue over the past 24 hours, the spokesman said.

Read more:
Cryptocurrency software bundled with BitTorrent triggers complaints

Review: Madonna's 'Rebel Heart': A point/counterpoint review

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Review: Madonna's 'Rebel Heart': A point/counterpoint review
Mar 062015
 

KYLE ANDERSON Its been sort of a rough 21st century for Madonna. After the stellar premillennial onetwo punch of Ray of Light and Music, its felt like she has been following rather than innovating. Rebel Heart is stuffed with top-level talentDiplo, Avicii, Kanyebut at the end of the day, theyre not who were here for. Adam, what are your expectations of a Madonna album in 2015?

ADAM MARKOVITZ Even for those of us who remember her imperial phase (c. 19852001), shes become a giant cultural question mark. Is Madonna a still-active pop star in a slow period? A nostalgia act who puts out new music? A living legend who wont go gently into that good four-nights-a-week Vegas residency? Rebel has an electro-rap track called Bitch Im Madonnabut I honestly dont know what that means anymore. And by the sound of Rebel Heart, which has some nice melodies and thoughtful lyrics buried under a lot of badass posturing, Madonna doesnt either. Her best albums always had a clear goal, whether it was dancing or shocking or chakra-ing. This time it feels like she just wants to prove she isnt finished yet.

ANDERSON Youre not wrong. Both sonically and philosophically, the album is all over the place. The opener, lead single Living for Love, has a big sexy disco underbelly and just enough Diplo glitch to give it some edge. Then theres the rocksteady dub Unapologetic Bitch, the post-Yeezus robo-grind Illuminati, the electro-campfire sing-along Joan of Arc. All that style whiplash can be vertigo-inducing. And yet despite the idea overload, I like way more here than I expected to. I would have assumed that a Mike Tyson rant, a barely intelligible Chance the Rapper verse, and seemingly six different hooks would make Iconic my most skipped track. Yet I kind of admire its chaos. Same goes for Holy Water: I should be completely over the idea of Madonna juxtaposing Christian imagery with frank sexuality, which she has been doing for three decades. Maybe its the bass gurgles that remind me of classic Massive Attack or the reference to Vogue, but she sells it for me. I cant stand Body Shop, thoughan extended car/sex metaphor that sounds as if she just discoveredliterary devices.

MARKOVITZ S.E.X. is pretty awful: Oh my God/Soaking wet/Back and forth/Until we break the bed is amateur-hour erotica from somebody who once released an album literally called Erotica. But I do like the weird touches. She name-checks Bieber and the Pope on Illuminati and then implies that her body fluids are a sacrament on Holy Water. Body Shop has the most natural vocals on the album; Madonna sounds like an actual human woman instead of Siri singing Fifty Shades of Grey on low batteries. The funny, creative, outrageous Madonna weve known is still in here somewhere. It just takes a lot of patience to find her.

ANDERSON I have faith that shell reveal herself with repeated listens. (Weirdly, for an album mostly designed to move people in a club, its actually a pretty fascinating headphone trip.) This may be damning it with faint praise, but this is Madonnas best outing since 2000s Music, and that earns Rebel Heart a solid B.

MARKOVITZ I love that shes as frustrating and ambitious as everstill difficult, complicated, and hard to pin down. But thats how Id describe this album, too. If Like a Virgin is her A game, and something rocky but rewarding like Bedtime Stories is B level, then this gets a C+.

BEST TRACKS:

Living for Love

Ghosttown

Continue reading here:
Review: Madonna's 'Rebel Heart': A point/counterpoint review

Should You Customize Your #SEO Strategy For Specific Niches? by @tomdemers

 SEO  Comments Off on Should You Customize Your #SEO Strategy For Specific Niches? by @tomdemers
Mar 022015
 

Most people would acknowledge that the contents of your site will play a major role in determining your SEO strategy. Few marketers or SEOs would argue the strategy for a large news-oriented publishing site versus a large e-commerce site versus a small SaaS site will be distinctly different, with varyinglevel of emphasis on technical issues, content strategies, and link building tacticsfor each.

Its also pretty obvious that the amount of money and headcount you have to dedicate to your SEO efforts will impact what you can and cant do as it relates to SEO.

But theres a third important factor in designing your SEO strategy.

What about the specific niche that youre in? Should your niche impact your SEO strategy?

The short answer is: absolutely, yes.

The longer answer is that there are some basic considerations (and several related questions) you need to keep in mind in when devising your SEO strategy. In this post Ill walk through each of those, and show you how to think about each consideration to ensure you are focusing on the right tactics and getting the most leverage possible out of your SEO efforts.

The first thing to think about related to your niche in developing an SEO strategy is how do people (and particularly your ideal prospects and customers) search and ultimately buy things?

To help give some additional context throughout this post, Im going to imagine I have four different businesses in four dramatically different niches (then Im going to imagine taking a nap, because I think Ive bitten off more than I can pretend to chew), and Iwilloutline an SEO strategy for each (again these are all entirely fictional companies, Im giving them mostly terrible made up names for the sake of easy reference later in the post):

For each of these sites, I want to think about a few important high level considerations as it pertains to search behavior:

More:
Should You Customize Your #SEO Strategy For Specific Niches? by @tomdemers

 Posted by at 8:42 am  Tagged with:

Exclusive New Interview with Rebel Illuminati/Indigo Child: The Stuff He Revels – Video

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Exclusive New Interview with Rebel Illuminati/Indigo Child: The Stuff He Revels – Video
Feb 192015
 



Exclusive New Interview with Rebel Illuminati/Indigo Child: The Stuff He Revels
Here is the link that goes with the post: Interview with Rick Price: A write in Pres… Here is the link that goes with the post: Interview with Rick Price: A write in Pres. Here is the link…

By: Golda Saran

View original post here:
Exclusive New Interview with Rebel Illuminati/Indigo Child: The Stuff He Revels – Video

 Posted by at 11:44 am  Tagged with:



Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism