Students at Rwanda’s Africa Digital Media Academy (ADMA) have been urged to double their efforts in using ICT for development.

The call was made by the Minister for Youth and ICT, Jean Philbert Nsengimana on Monday while presenting to the academy the global coveted award it won recently from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).

The minister received the award on behalf of the government, during a World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) forum in Geneva, Switzerland that focused on post-2015 development agenda.

The Africa Digital Multimedia Academy established through collaboration between the WDA and pixel Corps a US-based digital media firm started in March 2012, focusing on quality video and film production.

Minister Nsengimana who was accompanied by the state minister in charge of TVET Albert Nsengiyumva told students at the academy to use the opportunity in improving production of digital content that meets international standards, passing on skills to all people engaged in the field.

Rwanda was recognized alongside other 17 countries for her great effort in implementing various initiatives to speed up ICT development.

Other countries are Mexico, Netherlands, Ecuador, India, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Italy, Kazakhstan, Congo, Oman, Kuwait, Argentina, United Arab Emirates, and Columbia.

ADMA currently has 40 students in two batches training in quality video and film production, basic production skills like computer graphics, editing, and audio lighting, motion tracking and photo shop and 3D modeling.

Jack Karamutsa a student at the academy believes that skills acquired at ADMA will help in transforming the quality of video production and other related techniques to required international standards.

According to the director general of WDA Jerome Gasana, the academy will further be equipped to a capacity of recruiting more 40 students. He also added that a Green screen technology which is a special production technique is also yet to be introduced.

ADMA is expected to become a hub for digital content production linked to various clients in demand for content related to different sectors including Education, health, and business.

In scaling up the academy to a continental level, a system of marketing their activities through production units for income generation is being considered

An administrative law judge decides that a man leasing a condo broke New York’s laws after he rented out part of his home on Airbnb.

New York officials have determined that a man who rented out part of his apartment on Airbnb should pay $2,400 for violating the city’s illegal hotel law, despite Airbnb stepping in on the host’s behalf.

The city initially asked host Nigel Warren to pay $7,000 total in fees for violating a law that makes it illegal for property owners to rent out homes temporarily — essentially mimicking hotel stays — and for unrelated issues with building and zoning codes, according to the decision and order issued by the board. (See PDF below; it cites Abe Carrey, who owns Warren’s condominium, and Warren’s first name is misspelled.)

The city argued that the apartment “may only be used as private residences and may not be rented for transient, hotel, or motel purposes.”

As Airbnb continues to shake things up for the hotel industry, it’s increasingly running into issues with the law, particularly in areas where the law is not clear cut. It’s not just in New York — officials in the company’s hometown of San Francisco are concerned about property owners potentially using its service to get around local tenant protections and land use codes.

The New York case is centered around a 2011 law that makes it illegal for New York residents to rent out a property for less than 29 days. It was originally aimed at landlords who bought up residential properties and turned them into hotels. Airbnb has been lobbying legislators to change the law so it clearly protects hosts, like Warren, who are not trying to turn their homes into hotels.

For Warren’s case, Administrative Law Judge Clive Morrick dismissed the building and zoning code violations but agreed that Warren did violate the illegal hotel law. He lowered the fee total to $2,400.

“While breech of the condominium rules is not of itself a ground for sustaining this (notice), respondent was in breach (through Warren’s acts) and the existence of the rule against rental for transient, hotel, or motel purposes is evidence that the unit owners were to restrict their use to permanent occupation,” Morrick wrote.

Airbnb issued a statement to CNET, saying it was disappointed in Morrick’s decision:

This decision runs contrary to the stated intention and the plain text of New York law, so obviously we are disappointed. But more importantly, this decision makes it even more critical that New York law be clarified to make sure regular New Yorkers can occasionally rent out their own homes. There is universal agreement that occasional hosts like Nigel Warren were not the target of the 2010 law, but that agreement provides little comfort to the handful of people, like Nigel, who find themselves targeted by overzealous enforcement officials. It is time to fix this law and protect hosts who occasionally rent out their own homes. Eighty-seven percent of Airbnb hosts in New York list just a home they live in — they are average New Yorkers trying to make ends meet, not illegal hotels that should be subject to the 2010 law.

Warren’s landlord has 30 days from May 14, the date the decision was mailed, to appeal the decision, according to the Environmental Control Board, which oversaw the case. The board reviews cases related to regulations that “protect the city’s health, safety, and clean environment.”

Warren told CNET he hasn’t decided if he’s going to appeal the decision:

While I’m disappointed with the ruling, I’m relieved the penalty is far less than what the original fines seemed to be. I’d say it’s now a pain in the ass, which is much better than life-altering. I’m also glad that four of the five violations were dismissed. I plan to talk to Airbnb before making any decision on whether to appeal. I like what Airbnb does, and I don’t want this ruling to stand in the way of what I think is, overall, a great startup.

The case started in September when Warren rented his condo to a woman for a three-day stay. His housemate was also living at the apartment at the time, according to the hearing testimony, outlined in the document. He’s used Airbnb for rentals twice before.

Airbnb stepped in at Warren’s hearing on May 9 to argue that his case should be an exception to the New York law. Airbnb argued that “allowing such transient use supports the city’s desire to preserve living accommodations because it allows tenant the ability to bolster their income and pay rent.”

Airbnb’s statement refers to the 2011 illegal hotel law at the center of this case. There are several exceptions to this illegal hotel law — one is for houseguests who intended to stay for 30 days but did not actually stay for that length of time, and one for shared spaces.

Morrick found the first exception didn’t even make sense:

In summation, petitioner (City of New York) asserted that the intent of houseguests or lawful boarders, roomers or lodgers is at least a 30-day occupancy even though they may leave after a shorter time. Respondent (Warren, representing his landlord) disputed this interpretation. On this point, I find petitioner’s position untenable.The statute clearly states occupancy can be fewer than 30 days. And if houseguests, lawful boarders, roomers or lodgers were staying beyond 29 days, there would be no need for the exception because they would be permanent residents.

Warren argued for the second exception for shared spaces, since his housemate was living at the apartment during the rental period. Morrick decided the exception didn’t apply because the renter had to be considered a member of the “household,” with “access to all parts of the dwelling. Warren said his room door doesn’t lock, but Morrick noted that his renter did not go into Warren’s housemate’s room during her stay.

Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean New York will crack down on all Airbnb hosts. The city enforces this regulation when a complaint is filed. It’s not clear why officials zeroed in on Warren’s situation. But this has to have Airbnb worried about concerned customers, particularly because the company can’t formally do anything about Warren’s case. Airbnb’s only recourse is to change the law.

In a new Pew Report on teens and their social-networking habits, Twitter appears to be offering a resurgence, while Facebook may be losing impact. Because Facebook is just, well, too much.

When your hormones are harassing you to within an eyebrow-width of your sanity, all you want is a simple life.

You want to be able to curl up with the kind of social network that understands you and doesn’t give you headaches.

That kind of social network is, increasingly, not Facebook.

At least this is what teens seem to have told the Pew Research Center during its latest study.

Indeed, the teens surveyed were disturbed by the increased presence of adults and the increased tendency of other teens to angst-ridden self-expression on Mark Zuckerberg’s site.

There is, as one teen respondent put it, “too much drama.”

I thought angst-ridden self-expression was the exclusive preserve of teens (and writers). How odd that many teens seem to be turning against themselves.

Where do they turn? Twitter is enjoying a teen resurgence. More than double the teens surveyed now tweet.

How odd that they think there are fewer adults there. Could it be because the general level of tweeted debate is around 7th grade? Or could it be merely that these kids’ parents haven’t yet realized that their kids are on Twitter?

Only 25 percent of these kids say that they kept their tweets private. Still, they find Twitter a simpler environment in which to function socially.

Could it be, though, that these kids (94 percent of whom are still on Facebook too) post anodyne material to Facebook simply to fool the olds into believing that they know everything that’s happening with their children — while the real, social stuff actually happens on Twitter?

Though kids are sharing more, they’re also becoming a little more circumspect about whom they are sharing with. Many have even learned how to delete certain things.

One nuanced perspective on the drifting patterns of teens and social media was offered by writer (and parent of teens) Cliff Watson.

He believes that kids don’t need Facebook because “they literally don’t need Facebook.”

He believes that for adults, Facebook is the class reunion. It’s where you keep up with what your friends are doing.

“You know what kids call that? School,” he says.

He continues: “For kids who still go to school, Facebook is boring. If one of their friends does something amazing or amazingly dumb, they’ll find out within five minutes. If they’re not friends with that person, it will take 15 minutes.”

Yes, yes. But how do they find out?

“Mobile. And not just texting. In fact, pure cellular texting is only part of the equation. Texting is being supplemented by the products that are making Facebook not just boring, but obsolete: apps.”

Might this have been one tiny reason why Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook Home?

Watson is convinced that Twitter has a very simple representation for teens.

After first trying Twitter and dismissing it, teens returned because “some enterprising high school student turned to her friends and said: ‘You know what? We could use Twitter like one big group SMS. It’s like texting. But to everybody.’”

In the end, these kids are making social networking truly social. It isn’t about posting your latest outfit or beer pong picture and asking for validation. It isn’t about seeing who Snodgrass is dating or what’s he smoking.

It’s a genuine conversation. Dialogue. Immediate dialogue. Backward and forward.

They would text (and do), but mom and dad got wise to that. They check their texts.

If there’s one thing that kids need to believe, it’s that they’re wiser than mom and dad.

So now it’s Twitter, Kik, Instagram, and Snapchat.

But, don’t worry, mom and dad. You’ll soon catch up. But that’ll be the time that kids start feeling it’s, like, all drama again.

So that’ll be the time the kids will start fooling you again.

]]> http://www.techrwanda.com/news/2641/teens-facebook-is-just-like-too-much-drama/feed/ 0 http://www.techrwanda.com/news/2638/xbox-one-moves-microsoft-closer-to-living-room-hub/ http://www.techrwanda.com/news/2638/xbox-one-moves-microsoft-closer-to-living-room-hub/#comments Wed, 22 May 2013 06:25:56 +0000 admin http://www.techrwanda.com/?p=2638
The next-generation gaming console from the software giant is about much more than gaming. It should help Microsoft realize its vision of being at the center of consumer computing.
REDMOND, Wash. — Perhaps the most telling detail of Microsoft’s media event to unveil the new Xbox One was the fact that the company didn’t even get around to talking about gaming until halfway through the presentation.
It’s hard to overstate the significance of that. Microsoft sees the Xbox One, more than any other version of the Xbox, as a device for everyone, not just hardcore gamers. There’s no doubt Microsoft was pushing into that direction, even with the original Xbox that debuted in 2001.
But Microsoft’s focus during the Xbox One event demonstrates the company’s bid to secure a digital hub in living rooms from which consumers will use all sorts of other Microsoft technologies. It’s the centerpiece of Microsoft consumer devices and services strategy.
When Don Mattrick, the president of Microsoft’s Interactive Entertainment Business group, took the stage today, he talked first about the company’s efforts to “harmonize” the living room, where technology remains “fragmented.” Those are the marching orders for the Xbox One.
“Team Xbox is on a new mission,” Mattrick said, adding that the console is the “ultimate all-in-one-home entertainment system.”
The entertainment group’s chief marketing officer, Yusuf Mehdi, put the Xbox One through its paces, demonstrating just about everything but its gaming capability. While he noted that the company would go into more detail on games at next month’s E3 gaming convention in Los Angeles, his focus on TV viewing, video conferencing, and music listening are key to understanding the strategic significance of Xbox One.
“What if a single device could provide all your entertainment?” Mehdi asked. “What if it was always ready and connected?”
With voice-recognition technology developed by Microsoft’s research group, Mehdi turned on the console with the words, “Xbox on.” He quickly navigated to viewing “The Price is Right” by saying, “Watch TV.” To hear music, he said, “Go to music.” The Xbox One snapped from entertainment experience to another in a flash.
The non-gaming demo didn’t stop there. Internet Explorer is baked in to let users surf the Web. The Net is weaved into Xbox apps so that fantasy sports fans can watch a football game, for example, and watch how their fantasy team is doing in real time, with their scores updated the instant a player runs for a touchdown or kicks a field goal.
Mehdi showed off integration with Microsoft’s Skype video conferencing technology, which Microsoft acquired two years ago, too. Xbox One users will be able to have video calls with Skype right from their sofa.
To enable Skype and all sorts of other voice and gesture commands, critical for the non-gaming applications, Microsoft is requiring its Kinect controller for every Xbox One.
“The all new Kinect is now an essential and integrated part of the platform,” according to an FAQ Microsoft posted regarding the Xbox One. “By having it as a consistent part of every Xbox One, game and entertainment creators can build experiences that assume the availability of voice, gesture and natural sensing, leading to unrivaled ease of use, premium experiences and interactivity for you.”
The new Kinect, which comes with every Xbox One, has been completely redesigned. Its field of view is some 60 percent larger. That allows as many as six people to fit into the field of view, rather than the two allowed by the current Kinect. What’s more, it works better in smaller rooms because people can be closer and still fit in the frame.
Microsoft eventually did get around to talking about games at the Xbox One debut. An EA executive trumpeted new sports titles, and an Activision boss gave a demo of its upcoming Call of Duty: Ghosts. More gaming titles certainly will come. But make no mistake, gaming for the Xbox One is only part of the strategy. Microsoft wants this next Xbox to be core of consumers’ entertainment world.

Microsoft is bound to play up the non-gaming entertainment features of the new console, focusing on streaming video, Skype calling, and deeper integration with other devices and services.

Much has changed in the video game landscape since Microsoft unveiled the Xbox 360 in 2005.

Back then, Microsoft was a clear underdog, hoping to cut into the leads held by rival consoles from Nintendo and Sony. The Xbox had a core following, to be sure. But it also had plenty of ground to make up.

When Microsoft reveals the details of the next Xbox on Tuesday, it will be sitting in a far more comfortable position. Just last week, NPD reported that 130,000 Xboxes were sold in April in the United States, making the Xbox the best-selling video game console in the country, the 28th consecutive month it’s been in that spot. Consumers spent $208 million on hardware, software, and accessories for the Xbox in April, more than any rival console.

That success put Microsoft in the enviable position of waiting to see what Nintendo and Sony would offer in their next-generation consoles before taking the wraps off its next Xbox. Nintendo launched its Wii U, complete with a tablet-like game controller that doubles as a second screen, last November, well ahead of Microsoft and Sony in order to get a jump on rivals and boost its sagging console fortunes. But gamer interest has been tepid.

Sony unveiled its PlayStation 4, which has a far zippier graphics engine and beefier storage than its 7-year-old predecessor, in February. It’s likely to go on sale this fall.

Having seen its rivals play their hands, what cards is Microsoft likely to show Tuesday?

“There is no question it will have a big hard drive, a DVD/Blu-ray drive, a fast processor, and tons of memory,” Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter said of the next Xbox. “Microsoft has all the network support it needs to ensure a stellar multiplayer experience. What’s left is software, non-game functions, and form factor.”

And those non-gaming entertainment features may well be the centerpiece of Tuesday’s media event. After all, Microsoft will hold a second media briefing just three weeks later at the giant E3 gaming conference in Los Angeles. That is the more likely place for it to focus on the games it’s lined up for the next console and the features that will appeal to hardcore gamers.

It’s also likely that Microsoft on Tuesday will go into detail about the streaming-media capabilities of the new console. Already, the Xbox 360 lets viewers connect to Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant Video, and Hulu, among others. It has partnerships with Major League Baseball, the UFC for pay-per-view fights, and CNET TV (which is owned by CBS Interactive, publisher of CNET News). Pachter thinks it’s likely that Microsoft will offer Internet TV, that is, regular broadcast television delivered over the Internet, with the next Xbox.

There have been questions about whether the new console will require constant Web connectivity, something that’s caused much consternation with gamers. The concern is that Microsoft will require connectivity for game installation, potentially undermining the ability for gamers to play second-hand titles that have previously been registered to others. Always-connected is seen by some gamers as Microsoft’s way to thwart piracy at their expense.

But earlier this month, Ars Technica reported on an internal e-mail to the Xbox team, saying that the new console won’t need to be connected to the Web for, among other things, “playing a Blu-ray disc, watching live TV, and yes playing a single player game.”

The next Xbox will likely leverage other Microsoft products and services, and perhaps buoy some as well. Microsoft’s SmartGlass app already allows mobile phones and tablets to become a second screen that can interact with an Xbox 360, turning those devices into remotes that can play, pause, rewind, or advance videos. Microsoft could well bake even deeper integration into the Xbox with Windows PCs and tablets, as well as Windows Phone devices.

Calling on Skype
Having acquired Skype nearly two years ago, Microsoft has been busily weaving that video communication technology into its products. The Xbox is a likely candidate for Skype integration as well, giving gamers a way to video chat with others during a game. And putting Skype on the next Xbox could open the door for easy video conferencing in consumers’ living rooms, even when they’re not gaming.

To make it more appealing, Pachter wonders if Microsoft will bundle Skype into the Xbox Live Gold service, offering free calls to phones, in addition to Net-connected devices.

While there has been plenty of speculation about the software and services that the next Xbox will offer, little has been leaked about the hardware itself. The original Xbox was a behemoth by today’s standards, a muscle car of a console with a bulging top. The Xbox 360 slimmed down, with its iconic hourglass curves, a look crafted by Astro Studios in San Francisco and Hers Experimental Design Laboratory of Osaka, Japan.

Design continues to be a focus for Microsoft, and there’s little doubt that the look of the next Xbox will have been painstakingly considered. After all, the device often sits in entertainment systems in gamers’ living rooms, precious real estate that demands aesthetics.

Most analysts expect the next console to include the technology from Microsoft’s popular Kinect motion-sensing, voice-recognizing controller. Launched in 2010, the Kinect opened up an entirely new genre of gaming to the Xbox. What’s more, it gave gamers the ability to navigate through the Xbox universe with voice commands. The integration with Kinect will no doubt be deeper with the next Xbox.

As for the price, longtime Microsoft blogger Paul Thurrott reported that the console will cost $499, or $299 for customers who also buy a two-year Xbox Live Gold subscription for $10 per month. Thurrott, who didn’t disclose his sourcing for the pricing plan, also accurately broke the news of the Xbox’s May 21 unveiling date.

Microsoft has declined to confirm any rumors, instead encouraging fans to tune into the Tuesday event.

With the hardware work largely done, Microsoft is now left to rev up the hype machine in advance of the launch. Tuesday’s event will draw scores of journalists, and Microsoft will air the event live over the Web, on Xbox Live, and on cable’s Spike TV. And the shortcomings of Nintendo’s Wii U have cleared the marketing path a bit for Microsoft and Sony.

“I think it will be hard to distinguish the core features of a new Xbox versus a PS4, and at the end of the day it comes down to marketing the message that your system is better,” said David Cole, chief executive of market research firm DFC Intelligence. “I think it will be a marketing battle more than anything.”

More customers are satisfied with Apple’s phones than any other handsets, but they’re not as happy as they were last year, a new report said.
According to an American Customer Satisfaction Index report issued today, Apple received a score of 81 (on a scale of 100) in terms of customer satisfaction. But the company dropped 2 percent from its 2012 position, and the iPhone lags the customer satisfaction rating of 86 for Apple’s desktop, laptop, and tablet business.
At the same time, satisfaction with Motorola phones jumped 5 percent from 2012 to 77, and Nokia grew 1 percent to 76. Samsung posted the biggest gain of all handset makers, up 7 percent to 76.
“The improvement [for Samsung] is the largest yet for any cellphone manufacturer,” the ACSI report said. “Nevertheless, Samsung remains well behind industry leader Apple.”
Other decliners included HTC and LG, while BlackBerry was flat at 69.
The handset results shouldn’t come as too big of a surprise. Samsung’s newest devices, including the Galaxy S4, have made it more popular with users. But Apple’s most recent smartphone, the iPhone 5, wasn’t viewed as a big leap over prior generations.
The ACSI is based on a survey of 70,000 people in the U.S. Results measure customer satisfaction with more than 230 companies in 43 industries and 10 economic sectors, as well as more than 100 services, programs, and Web sites of federal government agencies. A scale of 0 to 100 designates how satisfied people are with their services, with higher scores designating greater satisfaction.
Along with handset vendors, the report also measured satisfaction with wireless phone, Internet, and paid TV services. Generally, people are happier with their wireless and paid TV services this year, but the rankings are among the lowest of all tracked sectors. The Internet service provider sector made an appearance on the ACSI for the first time, but it ended up with the worst customer satisfaction rating of all industries — 65.
Wireless telephone service climbed 2.9 percent to an ACSI benchmark of 72 for 2013, matching its 10-year high and reversing a two-year trend of declining satisfaction.
Verizon Wireless leapt over Sprint to become the highest-ranked carrier with a score of 73. Sprint stayed steady at 71, and AT&T rose to 70. T-Mobile posted the only decline among wireless carriers, falling 1 percent to 68.
“It remains to be seen whether T-Mobile’s recent move to become the first national wireless carrier to forgo contracts, augmented by the company’s just-completed acquisition of MetroPCS, can make things better,” the report said.
Meanwhile, the ACSI also found that people don’t hate cable and satellite TV providers as much as they used to. After experiencing stalled customer satisfaction for the past three years the ACSI score for subscription television service rose 3 percent to 68.
Overall, customers are “far more satisfied” with their fiber-optic and satellite service than cable service. Verizon’s FiOS service led the pack with a score of 73, while DirectTV followed with 72 and AT&T’s U-verse followed with 71. Dish rounded out the above-average providers with a rank of 70. All of the cable TV providers improved in 2013, excepted for Time Warner Cable, which fell 5 percent to an industry low of 60.
For Internet service providers, Verizon’s FiOS topped the list with a rating of 71, while Cox Communications followed with 68. AT&T’s U-verse and Charter Communications both received a rating of 65. Further down the list was Comcast, with ranked last with a rating of 62.
“High monthly costs and problems with both reliability and speed are the main culprits,” the ACSI report said. “Add to that a landscape that is even less competitive than subscription TV service … and there is little incentive to improve service.”
However, the report noted that options such as Google Fiber may eventually force current Internet service providers to step up their customer service.

A senate panel releases a lengthy report detailing how the tech company used offshore corporate structures to avoid paying billions in U.S. taxes.
On the eve of Apple CEO Tim Cook’s hearing in front of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, the subcommittee released a report Monday detailing how it believes the tech giant has avoided paying its fair share of U.S. taxes.
“Apple is an American success story,” the report reads. “Today, Apple Inc. maintains more than $102 billion in offshore cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities (cash). Apple executives told the Subcommittee that the company has no intention of returning those funds to the United States unless and until there is a more favorable environment, emphasizing a lower corporate tax rate and a simplified tax code.”
The subcommittee, which is led by Sens. Carl Levin and John McCain, has been conducting a lengthy investigation into Apple’s alleged tax-avoidance strategies. With its success, Apple has come under scrutiny. The company has earned a $145 billion pile of cash — more than $100 billion of which is held outside the U.S. To bring it back into the country, Apple would face up to a 35 percent corporate tax rate.
In its report, the subcommittee notes that Apple has creatively set up corporate structures in various countries that let it act as a resident of nowhere; therefore, the company gets to pay barely any or no corporate taxes on its international revenue. In fact, one of Apple’s subsidiaries, Apple Operations International, hasn’t paid corporate taxes for the last five years even though it earned $29.6 billion from 2009 to 2012, according to the Senate panel.
Apple “has used a variety of offshore structures, arrangements, and transactions to shift billions of dollars in profits away from the United States and into Ireland, where Apple has negotiated a special corporate tax rate of less than 2 percent,” the report says. “One of Apple’s more unusual tactics has been to establish and direct substantial funds to offshore entities that are not declared tax residents of any jurisdiction.”
For its part, Apple also released testimony on Monday that it plans to present to the subcommittee on Tuesday. This testimony details how and where the company pays its corporate taxes and also outlines how it believes the U.S. should simplify its corporate tax system. Apple pitches itself as a job creator, and it notes that it was likely the largest income tax payer in the country last year, paying out “nearly” $6 billion.
“These payments account for $1 in every $40 in corporate income tax the U.S. Treasury collected last year,” Apple said in its statement.
Apple is just one of several companies being investigated by the subcommittee. Last September the group spoke with Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard. Tuesday’s hearing involves Cook, along with Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer and Apple’s head of tax operations Phillip Bullock.

The inventor of Bitcoin has been shrouded in a mystery so complete, it’s baffled even core developers for the virtual currency. Who is Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonym for the person or group of people who came up with the original idea for the electronic cash system in 2008?
After contributing thousands of lines of code and hundreds of posts on Bitcoin, Nakamoto sent a note to a developer in April 2011 saying that he had “moved on to other things.” Later that year, the New Yorker and others tried to unravel the mystery, but came away empty-handed.
But now Ted Nelson thinks he has the answer. The computer visionary has posted a video on YouTube in which he claims that the real person behind the pseudonym is none other than Shinichi Mochizuki, a math professor at Kyoto University.
Of course, Nelson doesn’t offer up a lot of specifics to back up his theory, only explaining that Mochizuki is a brilliant mathematician and has a background that fits with the behavior of the elusive Nakamoto. Nelson also claims to have looked where others haven’t, asking himself, “What would Sherlock Holmes have done?”
A large portion of the video consists of Nelson lauding the virtues of Bitcoin. He compares it to gold in one example: “Most people call Bitcoin a virtual currency, but I call it electronic gold,” he says with a flourish of his eyebrows. “Like gold, Bitcoin has no central authority…Like gold there will always be unlimited supply, and thus it’s value will increase, and like gold, Bitcoin is brilliant.”
He then goes on to discuss the history of Bitcoin and its founder and his own feelings of empathy for Satoshi Nakamoto, saying he felt as if during his search he was looking for his “own long lost brother.”
We’ve contacted professor Mochizuki for comment and will update this post when we learn more.

Life becomes more meaningful when someone from a long way away reflects your own thoughts.
It makes you feel less alone, less forlorn on your island of one.
I was, therefore, lifted to heights previously unimagined on hearing that the head of Saudi Arabia’s religious police has declared that Twitter is an appalling waste of time, mind, and soul.
Actually, it’s worse than that.
As the BBC reports, Sheikh Abdul Latif Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh mused that anyone who uses Twitter “has lost this world and his afterlife.”
It may well be that the Sheikh’s biggest concern is that so many of his people are now enthusiastically posting uncensored thoughts on Twitter. Saudi Arabia is said to be the fastest-growing tweeting nation.
However, it’s hard to disagree with his ultimate sentiment.
Part of the purpose of Twitter is to try to make contact with the world one has lost. One sends out short messages in the hope that someone will notice, someone will hear, and — in an exalted moment of magic — someone will reply.
Twitter is a cry in the wilderness of the world for contact, attention, and care. It is, indeed, a soul thing.
Perhaps that’s why so many Saudi Arabians are ululating down its lines. Perhaps they feel their cries in the usual channels are falling on reluctant ears.
Still, it’s interesting that, by tweeting, one might also lose one’s afterlife.
It’s true that so many of us Thomases and Thomasinas — who spend our lives mired in the glue of doubt — are concerned about whether there is an afterlife at all.
Sometimes, it seems as if those that might be up there aren’t too concerned about those of us down here. So concerned that, even if there is an afterlife, they might not let us into it.
Why, only yesterday I was walking through San Francisco’s Union Square when I heard that I was “already condemned.”
There was a man on a raised stage, a sign next to him reading reading “Jesus: Open Your Heart, Open Your Mind.”
He was explaining that the fate of unbelievers was that they were going to hell — which didn’t seem terribly open-hearted.
I looked around me to see if anyone cared. All I could see were vacant smiles. Well, this was San Francisco.
I didn’t know what to do. I was momentarily panicked. So I turned to the world and tweeted my alarm.
Within seconds, a Twitter follower called Barbara was trying to reassure me. She, too, was concerned that I was going to hell.
So she wrote: “No worries, Chris. I’ll save you a seat.”
We’ve never met, though I know she’s a big Nascar fan. But we began a conversation about whether hell would have a bar and whether it would only serve one drink — fire water.
Suddenly, my soul didn’t feel quite so lost. Nor condemned. I wasn’t alone.
This didn’t stop the man onstage from picking up his guitar and singing about lifting up the lord’s name and condemning mine (or something like that).
Just as I was ready to weep again for my fate, ReadWrite blogger Matt Asay tweeted me: “I think people who talk like that don’t understand Christianity very well (I say as a devout Christian).”
That’s why people go on Twitter, dear clerics. For a little salvation.

At last week’s I/O conference, Google’s Larry Page didn’t speak like a CEO. He spoke like a politician.
Congress is a dog that won’t go for a walk.
We can tug at its leash as hard as we want, but it sits in the middle of the sidewalk, barking a defiant “no.” It’s not a purposeful no. It’s just a refusal for the sake of it, couched in principle.
Then along comes America’s most ambitious politician.
No, it’s not Paul Ryan or Elizabeth Warren. It’s Larry Page.
The man who is Google stood at last week’s I/O 2013 conference and made his own types believe that he was talking about technology.
His true agenda, though, is political.
Where government can do nothing, Google can do everything. Where government can offer no vision, Google merely asks how much time you have to listen and marvel at all the visions in its mind.
Government can’t make you happy, but Google can.
“Technology should do the hard work,” Page said, “so people can get on doing the things that make them happiest in life.”
Which would, for example, be Googling things while they sit in their self-driving cars.
Page spoke of revolutionizing health care, driving, and a host of other life-aspects that people (and governments) take for granted.
With his newly automated cars, Page promised “more green space, fewer parking lots, greater mobility, fewer accidents, more freedom.”
These aren’t corporate words. They’re the very promises of a politician who wants to shake up the local council.
The mere idea of offering a better life is one that used to be the exclusive aegis of political types. It used to be the marketing hook upon which you were supposed to hang your vote.
But Page even wants to go beyond the current laws by creating a Burning Man-style oasis where Google could experiment with creating the future — and, surely, change the ways and means (and laws) by which we live.
That used to be the preserve of governments in secret labs all around the world.
For Page, the traditional competition of corporate life is faintly banal.
He said: “It’s hard to find actual examples of really amazing things that happened solely due to competition. How exciting is it to come to work if the best you can do is trounce some other company that does roughly the same thing?”
The Googlecrat Political Party doesn’t believe in the two-party system. That just creates arguments, rather than actions.
Instead, the Googlecrats insist that there are so many problems to be solved and that Google, rather than your government, is more likely to solve them.
Page was asking far bigger questions than those of mere technology.
In a week in which the government was hip-deep in one supposed scandal after another, Page wondered between the lines whether governments could ever really work for people anymore.
He wondered whether the very same principles of competition that make corporations wither and die would do the same for government.
He was talking at developers, but he was talking to real people.
The question was a basic one: Do you trust the company that is now in possession of far more information about you than your government to do a better job for you than your government?
If Google knows you better (and it most certainly wants to), why not let it make your life better too?
It’s a fair question, isn’t it?