June 2006

060627-tangled-wires.jpgIn a word, headaches. Google has all the money in the world, and MySpace is just too big of a mess for them to want to deal with it. The constant public frown on MySpace is only the beginning of the headaches, too. I wouldn’t want to deal with the publicity or coding of MySpace, myself. Especially if I’m already an established powerhouse like Google.

Of course, in reality I would gladly personally take command of MySpace, because then I wouldn’t be so poor. I’m not exactly Google though, am I?

Have you ever looked at the address bar when you’re on MySpace? We’ve all noticed that it’s slower than a 15 year old tramp saying “no,” but there are genuine clues to what’s going on to cause all that stuttering and stalling, and they’re as close as your address bar. It would be best not to go into them here, they only stand out after years of watching what’s happening very closely while browsing. Just take it from me, I know a little bit about it, and things are not running on all four cylinders in MySpace’s programming department.
Google is notorious for their outstanding public face, and they should want nothing to do with anything that might harm that image. MySpace, on the other hand, is torn by controversy, the target of dozens (if not hundreds) of special interest groups, and as one Digg reader put it: a veritable “cesspool of pedophiles and cam whores.”

Pay attention to that bit about pedophiles, they might seem like nothing more than a creepy, trench-coat wearing nuisance to us, but they’ll be the death of MySpace yet. One of these days some underage tramp’s parents are going to actually succeed in suing MySpace when she bumps uglies with half the 35 year old men in the country (because of MySpace, mind you, not because she’s a slut). That’s the day MySpace is doomed. The lawyers will suck them dry, and being banned left and right by schools, parents and all manner of authority figures will stop the bounce-back that would otherwise occur.

Not only does Google not want to get sued, or tarnish their so far stellar image, but they just don’t want to deal with that shit. I can’t say I blame them.

It turns out the biggest argument for–and against–wanting to own MySpace turns out to be the people. No one can argue that owning MySpace would give Google access to a massive, reasonably loyal user base. Are these people really what Google wants though? When a company is trying to step up and fight the likes of Microsoft and Yahoo, do they really want to stoop to making the majority of their user base teeny-boppers and their emotionally crippled adult counterparts?


an earlier version of the cover, as it was yesterday:


and the cover as it is as of right now:


060626-comm-tower.jpgSo, between the recent appearance of telemarketers on Skype (and subsequent network load), and the brand new FCC tax on VoIP services that connect to traditional phone lines, I have to wonder if greed is going to ruin the promise of broadband phone service.

There was a day when I hoped VoIP would usher in a golden age of communication.  The gradual phasing out of analog phone systems would leave more cable bandwidth for the Internet, as digital data is a more efficient use of the line than analog voice.  Eventually a fully digital system would leave us with lower phone bills, more reliable phone service, and an all around slightly faster Internet.

The FCC, though, has decided to take a big old shit all over that dream, by trying to tax VoIP to fund the construction of archaic analog phone systems in rural areas.

Really, it could be argued that the FCC is doing nothing more than protecting the assets of the established telecoms.  If I owned a phone company I’d be terrified of VoIP, and be lobbying the FCC to the max.

So in the future, thanks to the FCC, we’ll have a slower internet, more unreliable phone system, and phone bills just as big as they are now.  That, and poor people in rural areas will get the shaft once again with their outdated phone systems, all so that a few rich guys can get a little richer.

060625-alone.jpg"The idea that there are really no substantive differences between religions needs to be held up to careful scrutiny and declared fraudulent. For example, Islam says that Jesus was not crucified. Christianity says He was. Only one of us can be right. Judaism says Jesus was not the Messiah. Christianity says He was. Only one of us can be right. Hinduism says God has often been incarnate. Christianity says God was incarnate only in Jesus. We cannot both be right. Buddhism says that the world's miseries will end when we do what is right. Christianity says we cannot do what is right. The world's miseries will end when we believe what is right"

– Alistar Begg, Made For His Pleasure , 126

I just came across this quote, while doing my browsing through Jesus-freak websites, and it got me thinking. I realized what it is that everyone seems to be doing wrong when they think about religion and spirituality. It all seemed to be bickering over technicalities, and most of it I think I'd have to know more about the religions concerned to really argue them, but at least with that last little bit I can explain how Christianity and Buddhism are really saying the same thing.

"Buddhism says that the world's miseries will end when we do what is right. Christianity says we cannot do what is right. The world's miseries will end when we believe what is right"

Believing vs. doing, that's a fine line. Would any christian argue that believing what is right will not lead to doing what is right? What could possibly influence our actions more than our beliefs? If our beliefs are the cause of our actions and our actions are a reflection of our beliefs, doing and believing are essentially the same thing.

Making a distinction between doing and believing is, in some cases, nothing more than a route to a cop-out. Some, especially spiritually lazy, Christians have separated the two so that they can do wrong, but still believe they will go to heaven simply for believing right. In reality, if they truly believed right they would do right too.

So really all that both of these religions are asking from their followers is rightness in every form they can muster.  It shouldn't be so hard, but for some reason they just can't do it.

I thought this was funny when I spotted it. I just got home and opened up my Google home page with its fancy RSS reader, and saw the headline Casualties in big Palestinian attack on Israeli post. It seemed a little poorly written for a major news source like this, especially when they're on the web and they don't really have to worry so much about how it looks on the page. Web headlines tend to be short and sweet, but still pretty long and descriptive by print standards. They also tend to be proper English.

Then I clicked the link to the actual page, and saw that they had changed the headline since Google cached it. It now reads a much more exciting and descriptive Palestinians launch deadly raid from Gaza into Israel.

Apparently even big news sources aren't immune to writing bad headlines.

Computer SecurityLaptop Theft Puts Customer Data At Risk

GMAC Financial Services recently began informing customers that their personal data has been severely compromised. Two laptops containing customers' personal data were stolen from a GMAC vehicle in Atlanta recently, exposing the names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, credit scores, marital status, and genders of 200,000 people.

As one particularly on-point customer said after receiving notice that his information had been stolen: "I'm not sure how or who determines what constitutes 'secure' when it comes to customers' personal information. However, if company guidelines deem it acceptable to house that data on laptops, in parked cars, then I would question their competence to establish any process and procedure to ensure the security of any data anywhere."

The first article I read about this little fiasco made a big fuss about how great it was that the data on these stolen laptops was "password protected." I thought that this was definitely either misunderstanding coupled with excessive faith in The Man, or it was intentional misunderstanding to avoid a public loss of faith in him. When I read that I thought "yeah, but these are old people, they probably think that putting stuff in 'My Documents' and putting a password on their windows account is security."

So I did a little Google search, read a little more, and uncovered the truth. Yeah, they had "password protection," but no actual encryption. What this means is that if I had these laptops I could get access to that data in 30 seconds, and I honestly don't know shit about security.

This is nothing less than what I expect from a generation that has to be told that the Internet is a good place to look for prior art when investigating patents.

I don't pretend to have answers. I don't know how we can force people to just learn a little about the technology they use every day. I just call them as I see them.

Highway 380 cover, getting close

Next Page »