SCIENCE: More Things Suck Than Not

Scientists at the joint NASA/NSA/NAS/SNA/ANS research project revealed that in November, we crossed a tipping point at which more things suck than not. Their findings, to be published this month in the JOURNAL OF VICISSITUDINAL OUTCOMES, reflect the convergence of several independent indicators, including voter turnout, consumer confidence, cultural climate, opioid use, plate tectonics, maximum absorbancy, recommended daily allowance, mortgage interest rates, average life expectancy and chocolate consumption. These factors, which are generally regarded as notoriously difficult to correlate, provide a disturbing picture of the general suckiness of things, the scientists said.

The scientists applied a variety of sophisticated information visualization algorithms derived from work done for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Using these techniques, the research team were able to produce computer graphics, many in 3D, showing sharply declining trends and downward spirals. The scatter plot, in particular, shows a widespread range of data samples with no compensating pattern or arrangement.

Scientists were unable to comment on whether this trend was likely to continue or to reverse itself, but expressed confidence that they would continue to mine the data as thoroughly as possible.

What Kind of Facebook User Are You?

Take This Simple Quiz

to learn what type of Facebook user you are.

What type of Facebook user are you:
Cynical curmudgeon
Gullible ad reader
Addicted game player
Inspirational quote poster
Everything-you-ate-or-did poster
Fan of George Takei
Cat photographer/videographer
Sharer of cat photographs/videos
Quiz taker

Deposition

Facebook vs. Everything Else

Facebook is trying to become the Internet itself, enticing users to send messages, post statuses, create photo albums, etc. These are all capabilities that are available freely or very cheaply elsewhere, and have been for years.

But now, thanks to Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and company can check out everything you post. You can allow them to use your name and picture in their sponsors’ ads. And they can decide what your friends and followers will see according to their own secret rules.

So just in case you don't want to give Facebook the keys to your home, here are some other options.

Facebook Feature	Alternative
like	phone call
messages and inbox	email
groups	Yahoo! groups, Google groups, mailing lists
status post	blog
photo album	web page, Picasa, Flickr and many others
news feed	RSS
wall	email, text message, sticky note
timeline	blog
notifications	email, RSS
games	Oh, please!
pages	web page
friends	um … real life?

Let's Do It!

Warning Signs

Dear Everyone,

• No, I don’t want to receive your free email newsletter.
• No, I don’t want to take a few minutes to tell you how satisfied I am with your service/product/whatever. (If I'm not satisfied, you'll hear from me.)
• No, I don’t want to play any Facebook games with you.
• No, I don't need to know what you had for breakfast.
• No, I won’t post your pseudo-profound philosophical tidbit on my status for one hour.
• No, I don’t want to give you access to my email address book so you can see if any of my contacts need spamming.
• No, I don't want to see pictures of your vacation, snow accumulation, new car, kid's prom or cat. (Unless they're 3D!)
• No, I don’t want you to keep showing me ads forever for something I looked up once out of idle curiosity.
• No.
• Yes, I saw what George Takei posted.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Tech Curmudgeon

Instant Facebook Posts

Accessories

Face the Book

Reboot

It's time to rededicate this blog to its original purpose, which is ... well, it's not just posting a lot of random drivel that crosses my mind. (We have Twitter for that.) It should be carefully planned drivel, the kind that makes you stop and think. And I hope what you're thinking is not "Well, that was a complete waste of time."

I think a blog is supposed to build community or some such crap. It's a place where like-minded and not-so-like-minded individuals can engage in civil discourse on whatever topic the blogger dictates unilaterally.

And speaking of like-minded, how about Facebook going all public? They figure the company is worth $100 billion. And the only asset they have is your personal information. That's right. They know how many pink pigs you have in Farmville, and how many mafiosi you've rubbed out, and what words you've exchanged with friends.   All 800 million of you.

That means that your personal information is worth, on average, $125 per person.  So how much is Mark Zuckerberg giving you?

Let me announce here that I'm starting a new social network.  You can join and provide as much or as little personal information as you like.  But for every piece of information you disclose, you'll get a share in the company.  So when we go public, you'll get something for your trouble!

Anyway, where was I?

Oh, yeah.  The blog thing.  Well, I hope you like it.

Attention Deficit

Crowd Control

TV Facemash

As recounted in the movie, The Social Network, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg originally created a site called Facemash, in which viewers were shown pairs of photos of Harvard students and asked to pick which one was hotter. To update this concept, we'd like to use more familiar faces from TV.  So here's our TV Facemash.

Who's hotter?

Progressive Insurance	T-Mobile
Jess (Domino's Pizza)	Pat (Saturday Night Live)
Geico	Mucinex

Fair Weather Friends

Are You Smarter Than a Computer?

C’mon. Admit it. You've felt like that, right? We all have. We hate computers. At best, they're miracles of technology, always out-thinking you, out-communicating you, out-social-networking you and just generally being smart-asses. At worst, they're stubborn pieces of techno-junk that refuse to give you what you want, just because you didn’t use the right secret handshake. ARGGHHH!

That’s why everyone ran out to buy an iPad … Oooh! A computer that will be nice to me! But that honeymoon’s over now too. One of those passionate affairs that burns itself out quickly.  Even the iPad has that passive-aggressive behavior so common in modern electronics.

In old Star Trek episodes, you could destroy a computer just by asking it some paradoxical question. Back then, computers understood speech perfectly, so you could just say “Computer, this sentence is false. True or false?” and it would immediately (because computers are so fast, you see) start spinning reels of tape back and forth, and showering the room with sparks and smoke.

Nowadays, of course, computers are much more robust. Now, to get a computer to crash, you have to do something wild, like … oh, say, try to view a Web page, or accidentally click a button twice or something extreme like that.

Seriously, if computers can process literally billions of instructions every second, why does it take so freakin’ long to do what you want? To understand this, you have to know something about how computers work.

The hub of a computer's nervous system is the Central Processing Unit (CPU).  This is the part that actually runs programs.  On most computers, there's a program running all the time, called the Operating System (or OS).  The OS is the software that waits for you to type and click and scream and swear, and then, if the weather's right and the moon is in the correct phase, it deigns to run whatever program you actually asked for.

But really, the operating system only wants to run a program called Idle.  Idle is what's running when you're not doing anything.  Idle is itself a program that doesn't do anything, but computers seem to find it amusing.  So what the operating system is really trying to do is get rid of you so it can get back to running Idle.  I guess it's kind of like Facebook for machines.

So really, whenever you use a computer, you're interrupting it when it's trying to play its favorite game.  If you've ever been the parent of a teenager, you know how successful that is.

Any more questions?

Don't mess with my email!

So Facebook is going to revolutionize electronic communication? Again? The New York Times quotes Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg as saying that, in The Times's words, e-mail was too formal, too slow and too cumbersome, especially for young people who had grown up communicating using online chat and text messaging systems.

Too formal?  Have you seen some of the email that ends up on various lists?  Even such staid groups as children's writers, cross-stitchers and cat lovers have email lists liberally peppered with obscenity, vitriol,  innuendo and just plain bad writing. The philosophical conundrum of the age is whether the anonymity of email causes all the mild-mannered Doctors Jekyll on the internet to post like Mr. Hyde.  Formality is not one's first impression.

Perhaps Mr. Zuckerberg is referring to the fact that e-mail encourages you to use actual words and sentences.  Granted this degree of formality seems excessive, but certainly not all e-mailers feel bound by these shackles. I personally receive many e-mails written in reckless disregard for convention or grammar (though admittedly a large percentage of these are proposing sexual hook-ups or various aids for same.)

Too cumbersome, especially for young people?  Evidently, Mr. Zuckerberg does not have parents, and has never seen any.  Young people do not find email cumbersome at all.  They can do it in their sleep.  It's the parents (and grandparents) who barely manage to muddle through.

There may be a case for "too slow" though.  Certainly the anxiety of waiting 30 or even 45 seconds for an e-mail message to cross 11 timezones is too onerous for anyone, let alone an impatient youth.  Surely instant messaging is a necessity in today's world.  Unfortunately, Facebook's track record does not suggest that whatever Mr. Zuckerberg has in mind will be anywhere near instant.

If you ask actual people what's wrong with email, they don't cite speed and convenience as problems.  Rather, the usual complaints are about privacy, security and spam prevention.  Not exactly Facebook's strengths.  Can you imagine sending a private message to your BFF, and having your boss comment and your mother "like" it?

The Social Network

I lose my geek bona fides if I don’t respond in some fashion to The Social Network, the new movie that claims to be about the origins of Facebook. I say claims because the movie really follows a typical  manipulative Hollywood plot: nerd loses girl, nerd starts $25 billion company to get even, nerd … well, I won’t spill too much, since obviously the ancient origins of Facebook are shrouded in mystery.

On the official site for the movie, the tag line is: A story about the founders of the social-networking website, Facebook. Not The story, as in what actually happened. Just A story. I think that about says it all.

You might think watching a bunch of brainiacs type at computers for two hours could get tedious, but this is broken up by thrilling action sequences of lawyers talking in conference rooms.  And yet, I have a number of problems with the film. Specifically,

1. The flashback approach is interesting, but considering that in the present we jump back and forth between two different lawsuits, the plot gets a bit scrambled. In one suit, founders Mark Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin are co-defendants, in the other, Saverin is suing Zuckerberg.  Maybe a flashback blocker would help.
2. Although this movie is inspired by and devoted to nerd-dom, it can’t resist nerd-bashing. In one montage, campus parties abound with unbridled hedonism, while Zuckerberg and his cohorts sit hunched over their computers. The nerd idea of a good time, as shown later, is a hacking competition performed while the contestants drink shots.
3. I don’t know what former Harvard president Larry Summers is like in real life, but I somehow doubt he’s really Groucho Marx reincarnated (especially since Marx was alive when Summers was born).
4. Despite his fascination with making Web sites to facilitate relationships and coupling, Zuckerberg himself seems asexual. In fact, he seems completely emotionless  about everything. He just shuffles along while others hurl money at him. A slight trace of a grin after a hasty  sexual encounter is his only hint of libido, and that was apparently brought on by no less an aphrodisiac than a lecture by Bill Gates.

Just as the movie dodges any probing of Zuckerberg's personality or lack thereof, it also begs the central question: Why Facebook? Sean Parker, creator of Napster, is shown taking credit for single-handedly bringing down music industry giants like Tower Records, ignoring the influence of Apple's iTunes or the MP3 format in general.  But outside Hollywood, causes and effects are rarely that simple. Why did Facebook so completely eclipse earlier sites like Friendster and MySpace?  Perhaps the answers are too complex for a glib screenplay.  Maybe we have to resort to the anachronism of reading the book.  

Though the movie feels like Revenge of the Nerds for grown-ups  (okay, Revenge of the Nerds for anyone), ultimately, it is a morality play, preaching that success leads to sex, drugs, and home repair. Heck, for a few billion dollars, I’ll take that chance.