As the proud owner of an iPhone, I will be the first to admit that its capabilities are somewhat limited. For instance, the camera is a big disappointment. AT&T's EDGE network is an utter disgrace. The lackluster battery life is frustrating when you aren't afforded the luxury of re-charging every night. And, although the Google maps feature is quite handy, the lack of a GPS system on the phone itself makes it impractical for navigating unfamiliar roads while driving.
The thing is, all of these problems have easy fixes.
In fact, many hacker sites have popped up with innovative solutions to the shortcomings of the first generation iPhone. For instance, did you know that you can actually record video directly to your phone? Although the first generation application can only record approximately 5 seconds of video, the developer anticipates that second generation apps will be able to record at 15-30 fps for as long as the hard drive will allow. And for those who are sick of AT&T's EDGE network, did you know that you can access Skype directly through your iPhone's web browser? If you do install 3rd party software, you might experience decreased battery life (beyond the already limited scope of the unhacked phone). But never worry, there's a hack for that, too. And for those who have wondered why there is no GPS function installed on the iPhone, look no further: Navizon provides you with a pinpointed location in relation to Google maps based on your distance from cell stations.
Many of these hacker solutions will likely be resolved with the 2G iPhone to be released sometime in 2008. But the prevalence of these innovations to counteract present day limitations illustrates an important point, which leads me to my iModest Proposal.
Crack the iPhone. Allow for open source applications in the same way that Facebook licenses 3rd party vendors to develop solutions to unsatisfied customer needs. Embrace the fact that geeks will be geeks, which means that if there is a way to work around the limitations of a certain product, somebody will figure out how to do it. Help them be entrepreneurs. Exploit this potential and create the first open source platform for software developers to create 3G, 4G, and InfinityG applications specifically for a superior piece of hardware.
When Steve Jobs announced at the 1997 Mac Expo that he was opening the Mac OS to Microsoft Office, the news was met with a resounding chorus of gasps. It looked like the last, desperate act of a failing company. But it turned out to be a genius move that allowed Apple to focus on its core competency. Similarly, an open source iPhone could be the next big thing to revolutionize the cellular and mobile industry.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Mass-Slighting
Now I know this is a bit off-topic, but only slightly. I'm here to complain about mass-text-messaging. During the holidays, these mass-texts are especially prevalent: "Merry Christmas!" from someone you don't speak with all that often, or even from someone you speak to rather often. It's vague enough to make me wonder, is it a mass-text? I feel torn: do I text back in thanks, or do I feel slighted for the impersonality of a mass-message?
My Cromagnum cell phone allows me to send to multiple recipients, but not to mass-text. When I send a text to, say, two of my friends, I write, "Do you guys wanna go to the Elbo Room for reggae tonight?" I make it explicit that I've sent it to both of them ("you guys"). However I know other people have the mass-text capability. I propose that it's good etiquette to indicate when you're mass-texting through such contextual cues.
In the email context, you can tell when something has been sent to "undisclosed recipients." Is my phone too ancient? Do other phones manifest a mass-text? If other phones make mass-texting obvious, I wouldn't feel like someone was trying to pull one over on me.
My Cromagnum cell phone allows me to send to multiple recipients, but not to mass-text. When I send a text to, say, two of my friends, I write, "Do you guys wanna go to the Elbo Room for reggae tonight?" I make it explicit that I've sent it to both of them ("you guys"). However I know other people have the mass-text capability. I propose that it's good etiquette to indicate when you're mass-texting through such contextual cues.
In the email context, you can tell when something has been sent to "undisclosed recipients." Is my phone too ancient? Do other phones manifest a mass-text? If other phones make mass-texting obvious, I wouldn't feel like someone was trying to pull one over on me.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Friendly Maneuvers
From Urban Dictionary:
"Facebook Limbo":
"Facebook Limbo":
The electronic space between accepting and rejecting a Facebook friendship. In Facebook limbo, the user fails to accept or reject friend requests from would-be Facebook friends from a variety of sources (e.g., random annoying classmates, despised work associates, ex-girlfriends, etc), because the user is uncertain if he or she will have to interact with these individuals in the future.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Picture This
I have a Flickr stream, and I take a lot of photos of people, my friends in particular. It seems natural to tag their names in the photos - but I stopped doing that.
There are a few services out there working on facial recognition; one of them is Polar Rose (a Swedish company with $5.1 mill in funding). PR relies on users to tag the faces of people; the software can recognize that a face is depicted and, I believe, first relies on users to tag them. After some tagging, the software seems capable of matching a name to the face on its own.
I entered the name of a friend of mine; they didn't have him in the database, but they did refer me to an external website of a company he once worked for, where they speculated a photo of him might exist. They were right - there was a photo of him there. The majority of the photos in their database appeared to be celebrities. (Google Image Search, anyone?)
Anyway, I've decided to stop tagging photos on Flickr with my friends as a part of good netiquette. If people want their names attached to their faces where public search engines can tag them, I guess they should be able to choose it. (I need to think a little more about Facebook, but you can de-tag yourself there.) Could Polar Rose use Flickr title and tags as a shortcut? Will you be able to opt out of PR? Robot.txt for your face?
Despite my privacy apprehensions, I could imagine getting sucked into tagging like you get hooked to a game. What's that bar game with the half-naked people? Photo Hunt!
UPDATE:
I discovered this today from EPIC:
There are a few services out there working on facial recognition; one of them is Polar Rose (a Swedish company with $5.1 mill in funding). PR relies on users to tag the faces of people; the software can recognize that a face is depicted and, I believe, first relies on users to tag them. After some tagging, the software seems capable of matching a name to the face on its own.
I entered the name of a friend of mine; they didn't have him in the database, but they did refer me to an external website of a company he once worked for, where they speculated a photo of him might exist. They were right - there was a photo of him there. The majority of the photos in their database appeared to be celebrities. (Google Image Search, anyone?)
Anyway, I've decided to stop tagging photos on Flickr with my friends as a part of good netiquette. If people want their names attached to their faces where public search engines can tag them, I guess they should be able to choose it. (I need to think a little more about Facebook, but you can de-tag yourself there.) Could Polar Rose use Flickr title and tags as a shortcut? Will you be able to opt out of PR? Robot.txt for your face?
Despite my privacy apprehensions, I could imagine getting sucked into tagging like you get hooked to a game. What's that bar game with the half-naked people? Photo Hunt!
UPDATE:
I discovered this today from EPIC:
In September of 2007, Facebook introduced public search listings. Previously, only Facebook members could search Facebook for other users. Now, non-members will be able to search. Further, major search engines such as yahoo and Goggle will index the public search listings. The listing shows a limited amount of information such as name, profile picture, and Friends.
Mile High WI-FI
It was probably inevitable, but the internet is reaching new heights--literally. Soon you will be able to surf from 30,000 feet through a number of services that will start popping up on American Airlines, Virgin America, JetBlue, Alaska Airlines and a number of international carriers. For selfish reasons, I am interested in this development because it will raise a whole new set of web-based social dynamics and, of course, another chapter in the ever-evolving Book of Netiquette.
From the AP via the Denver Post:
"Technology providers and airlines are already making decisions. Some will block services like Internet phone calls altogether while others will set limits and install filters on content. And traffic-management tools that are frowned upon on terra firma could become commonplace in the air."
I'm trying to imagine what air travel would be like if everyone around me were chatting away on Skype while surfing their favorite websites and sending off emails to their friends back home. Would this really make a long flight more bearable? And what of censorship? We've heard the stories of Southwest Airlines asking people to de-plane for dressing too provocatively. So is it proper netiquette to tattle on your neighbor for streaming porn? Only time will tell.
One thing is for certain: I will be investing in a pair of noise canceling headphones (and keeping my eyes on my own screen).
From the AP via the Denver Post:
"Technology providers and airlines are already making decisions. Some will block services like Internet phone calls altogether while others will set limits and install filters on content. And traffic-management tools that are frowned upon on terra firma could become commonplace in the air."
I'm trying to imagine what air travel would be like if everyone around me were chatting away on Skype while surfing their favorite websites and sending off emails to their friends back home. Would this really make a long flight more bearable? And what of censorship? We've heard the stories of Southwest Airlines asking people to de-plane for dressing too provocatively. So is it proper netiquette to tattle on your neighbor for streaming porn? Only time will tell.
One thing is for certain: I will be investing in a pair of noise canceling headphones (and keeping my eyes on my own screen).
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Shutter
Having been out of the Bay Area for a few days, a certain unnamed friend of mind was sending me emails via his iPhone that included photos of his location. Knowing his opinions on over-twittering, I couldn't help but tease him a bit about the frequency at which I was receiving these photo updates. This got me wondering whether there was a service for that, a Twitter for photos (I wanted it to be called "Shutter").
After a minimal amount of googling I found a blog entry by this blogger Fred Wilson on how to enable your Twitter account to sync with Flickr ("Twittr?"). I haven't tried it out; my phone doesn't have a camera (hard to believe, I know) and it seems a bit silly in the regular camera context.
You can sign up for this experimental service here. It looks to me like you post a twitter that includes a link to a photo in your Flickr stream (here's Wilson's Twitter page to see an example). I wish it was more integrated - it would be cooler to have the photo appear in your Twitter stream.
Of course, you could always take a photo on your cell and email it to your friends instead.
After a minimal amount of googling I found a blog entry by this blogger Fred Wilson on how to enable your Twitter account to sync with Flickr ("Twittr?"). I haven't tried it out; my phone doesn't have a camera (hard to believe, I know) and it seems a bit silly in the regular camera context.
You can sign up for this experimental service here. It looks to me like you post a twitter that includes a link to a photo in your Flickr stream (here's Wilson's Twitter page to see an example). I wish it was more integrated - it would be cooler to have the photo appear in your Twitter stream.
Of course, you could always take a photo on your cell and email it to your friends instead.
Friday, December 21, 2007
The Tightrope
It's official. Stewart and Colbert are back on with new shows as of 01/07/08. But there remains a great deal of speculation about what, exactly, they will be able to do on air. Both Stewart and Colbert are WGA members, which creates a very thin line to toe.
From the Hollywood Reporter:
"The 'Daily Show' the (sic) opening segment, in which Stewart riffs on the day's headlines with a set of scripted jokes, is unlikely to pass muster with the WGA. Guest interviews, on the other hand, are thought to be fair game."
In a previous post, I suggested that the WGA strike isn't ending anytime soon. I still suspect that the studios and writers are a long way off due to the sticking point of internet residuals. If Stewart and Colbert do return to the scripted portions of their shows (i.e. "Daily Show" correspondent reports and the infamous Colbert segment, "The Word") I have faith that they will do their best to draw attention to the strike in an ironic and incisive way.
For selfish reasons, I'm glad they're coming back. In the coming election year, there is too much at stake for the mainstream news media to dominate the information pipeline. Whatever happens, Stewart and Colbert will shake things up a bit, which is always a good thing. But they'll have to do so while walking a tightrope.
The good news is, they've been here before. Consider Stewart's performance on CNN's now defunct shout-fest, Crossfire, as well as Colbert's masterful delivery at the White House Correspondents Dinner.
From the Hollywood Reporter:
"The 'Daily Show' the (sic) opening segment, in which Stewart riffs on the day's headlines with a set of scripted jokes, is unlikely to pass muster with the WGA. Guest interviews, on the other hand, are thought to be fair game."
In a previous post, I suggested that the WGA strike isn't ending anytime soon. I still suspect that the studios and writers are a long way off due to the sticking point of internet residuals. If Stewart and Colbert do return to the scripted portions of their shows (i.e. "Daily Show" correspondent reports and the infamous Colbert segment, "The Word") I have faith that they will do their best to draw attention to the strike in an ironic and incisive way.
For selfish reasons, I'm glad they're coming back. In the coming election year, there is too much at stake for the mainstream news media to dominate the information pipeline. Whatever happens, Stewart and Colbert will shake things up a bit, which is always a good thing. But they'll have to do so while walking a tightrope.
The good news is, they've been here before. Consider Stewart's performance on CNN's now defunct shout-fest, Crossfire, as well as Colbert's masterful delivery at the White House Correspondents Dinner.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
How Fast Are You?
Speedtest.net allows you to check your upload and download speeds for free, and they've got a pretty slick interface to boot. Here were my stats:
As a little experiment, I opened a Bittorrent (Phish at the IT Festival in Limestone, Maine - 08-02-03) and was dismayed but not surprised to watch my download speed bottom out at 3kbps. And that's with five seeders. At this rate, my 592 MB file will be transfered in about 8 days.
No thanks, Comcast. I'll just get my friends to burn me the CD. Maybe those stupid turtles in the commercials (a.k.a. "The Slowsky's") just need to open up their own P2P file sharing network.
On second thought,the turtles aren't stupid. I'm just not feeling very Comcastic at the moment.
As a little experiment, I opened a Bittorrent (Phish at the IT Festival in Limestone, Maine - 08-02-03) and was dismayed but not surprised to watch my download speed bottom out at 3kbps. And that's with five seeders. At this rate, my 592 MB file will be transfered in about 8 days.
No thanks, Comcast. I'll just get my friends to burn me the CD. Maybe those stupid turtles in the commercials (a.k.a. "The Slowsky's") just need to open up their own P2P file sharing network.
On second thought,the turtles aren't stupid. I'm just not feeling very Comcastic at the moment.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Ghost Towns and Migrations
I like to have the Planet Earth DVD's playing somewhere in the background while I work. I realized that it is both more interesting and less distracting than CNN, and it makes for an excellent compliment to loud music. The Emmy-winning series, narrated by David Attenborough and produced by Alastair Fothergill, is just like every other nature documentary you've likely seen--except for the fact that the videography is so visually stunning that it creates an epic sense of adventure out of ordinary elements in nature.
The transitions from one scene to another are dictated simply by the migrations of a certain breed of animal, or the changing of the seasons, or how the battles for territory and breeding rights of a certain species create a ripple effect in some faraway land. Because the BBC invested in a full-on next generation kit that would still be the envy of any indie production company twenty years from now, the story of Planet Earth just tells itself. The producers are afforded the luxury of stepping back (like, ten miles back) and letting the drama unfold in high definition.
It just so happens that the DVD was playing as I decided to clean up my Myspace page, and I began thinking about the migrations that we make online.
The only reason why I even returned to Myspace is because I heard that they had revamped their layout to look more like Facebook. So I logged in and, sure enough, I was pleased to see the toned down look and feel of the new site. But then I noticed how deplorably out of date my page was. I mean, a lot has happened since I was a regular visitor. Was it really time to revamp my delightfully irreverent and lo-fi Myspace presence to come up with something a little more....mature?
I was stumped, so I posted a couple comments and caught up with some friends who still aren't on Facebook--and thought I would leave it at that. Then it began to occur to me that several of my friends managed to maintain multiple pages at a time, and perhaps it would be a good idea to at least take down the animated gif's.
Well, I still haven't.
Instead, I decided to take a trip down memory lane and logged into my Friendster account (Surprise #1: I still remembered the password). The site loaded very quickly (Surprise #2) and looked nearly identical to ...::drum roll please::... that's right, Facebook (Surprise #3).
But unlike Myspace, Friendster was an utter ghost town. All of my friends' profiles were exactly as they had left them many months and years ago. In fact, I was surprised by some of the faces that appeared in my "Top Friends" list. Had I actually selected these people at one time in my life? Or did the webmasters simply need to select somebody to put in there when they created the feature? All I remember is that sometime prior to 2005, I decided that I had waited for my page to load for the last time. And, apparently, I never looked back.
I can see how there may be something like a seasonal migration from one social networking site to another, depending on which cutting edge features they can develop. Now that Facebook promises not to invade my privacy, I think I'll stick around for a while and see what develops. As for Myspace and Friendster, the quarries have gone dry. If I go back at all, it will be like a scientific expedition to Antarctica. Just passing through...
Postscript: The Facebookification of other social networking sites raises another question: is it really wise for all of these heavily financed companies to look and feel the same? The story of nature dictates that too many species occupying the same space is typically a bad thing.
The transitions from one scene to another are dictated simply by the migrations of a certain breed of animal, or the changing of the seasons, or how the battles for territory and breeding rights of a certain species create a ripple effect in some faraway land. Because the BBC invested in a full-on next generation kit that would still be the envy of any indie production company twenty years from now, the story of Planet Earth just tells itself. The producers are afforded the luxury of stepping back (like, ten miles back) and letting the drama unfold in high definition.
It just so happens that the DVD was playing as I decided to clean up my Myspace page, and I began thinking about the migrations that we make online.
The only reason why I even returned to Myspace is because I heard that they had revamped their layout to look more like Facebook. So I logged in and, sure enough, I was pleased to see the toned down look and feel of the new site. But then I noticed how deplorably out of date my page was. I mean, a lot has happened since I was a regular visitor. Was it really time to revamp my delightfully irreverent and lo-fi Myspace presence to come up with something a little more....mature?
I was stumped, so I posted a couple comments and caught up with some friends who still aren't on Facebook--and thought I would leave it at that. Then it began to occur to me that several of my friends managed to maintain multiple pages at a time, and perhaps it would be a good idea to at least take down the animated gif's.
Well, I still haven't.
Instead, I decided to take a trip down memory lane and logged into my Friendster account (Surprise #1: I still remembered the password). The site loaded very quickly (Surprise #2) and looked nearly identical to ...::drum roll please::... that's right, Facebook (Surprise #3).
But unlike Myspace, Friendster was an utter ghost town. All of my friends' profiles were exactly as they had left them many months and years ago. In fact, I was surprised by some of the faces that appeared in my "Top Friends" list. Had I actually selected these people at one time in my life? Or did the webmasters simply need to select somebody to put in there when they created the feature? All I remember is that sometime prior to 2005, I decided that I had waited for my page to load for the last time. And, apparently, I never looked back.
I can see how there may be something like a seasonal migration from one social networking site to another, depending on which cutting edge features they can develop. Now that Facebook promises not to invade my privacy, I think I'll stick around for a while and see what develops. As for Myspace and Friendster, the quarries have gone dry. If I go back at all, it will be like a scientific expedition to Antarctica. Just passing through...
* * *
Postscript: The Facebookification of other social networking sites raises another question: is it really wise for all of these heavily financed companies to look and feel the same? The story of nature dictates that too many species occupying the same space is typically a bad thing.
Update
Two interesting things to note from my Facebook newsfeed (redacted for privacy).
First, someone has left the Six Degrees group (mentioned here)...I don't believe that requires any further remark!
Secondly, a couple has formed (discussion here). I can't help but wonder: they must have had a conversation specifically about changing their status, right? Did they change it simultaneously? Is Henry going to get some wall comments about this? Should I congratulate him?
I can't answer many of my questions because Karen isn't my friend. I propose that when a new couple is formed, their friends should have a one-week window to access the profile of the new significant other. Similar to when you poke someone - s/he gets a grace period to view your profile.
First, someone has left the Six Degrees group (mentioned here)...I don't believe that requires any further remark!
Secondly, a couple has formed (discussion here). I can't help but wonder: they must have had a conversation specifically about changing their status, right? Did they change it simultaneously? Is Henry going to get some wall comments about this? Should I congratulate him?
I can't answer many of my questions because Karen isn't my friend. I propose that when a new couple is formed, their friends should have a one-week window to access the profile of the new significant other. Similar to when you poke someone - s/he gets a grace period to view your profile.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
::laugh?::
"That email made me LOL. Actually LOL, I mean."
Have you heard people say that? There's LOL'ing and then there's actually laughing out loud. Like any language, emoticons and internet slang have evolved into an increasingly subtle and complex lexicon.
Here's an example of the nuances of laughing during an IM conversation. This is the reality behind what I write anyway.
Haha! - Like a guffaw, often to indicate I'm just joking around; in reality, I'm smiling.
HAH - Begrudging, as when someone is teasing me; in reality, I'm smiling.
lol - A little funny. Again, I'm still only smiling.
bahahaha - Someone has said something quite funny that was, in fact, meant to be a joke. I'm grinning in real life.
LOL - Clever and funny; in RL a "hah!" comes out of my mouth.
::laughing:: - Very funny. Actually laughing out loud, repeatedly.
And everyone knows that :-) is not the same as :) or =) or =D or :-D !
::wink::
Have you heard people say that? There's LOL'ing and then there's actually laughing out loud. Like any language, emoticons and internet slang have evolved into an increasingly subtle and complex lexicon.
Here's an example of the nuances of laughing during an IM conversation. This is the reality behind what I write anyway.
Haha! - Like a guffaw, often to indicate I'm just joking around; in reality, I'm smiling.
HAH - Begrudging, as when someone is teasing me; in reality, I'm smiling.
lol - A little funny. Again, I'm still only smiling.
bahahaha - Someone has said something quite funny that was, in fact, meant to be a joke. I'm grinning in real life.
LOL - Clever and funny; in RL a "hah!" comes out of my mouth.
::laughing:: - Very funny. Actually laughing out loud, repeatedly.
And everyone knows that :-) is not the same as :) or =) or =D or :-D !
::wink::
StumbleUpon... (I like it!)
As my wipers smeared greasy raindrops back and forth on my windshield, a friend in the passenger seat recommended that I use Coca-Cola to clean off the glass.
"Something about the acid and carbonation," she said. "Supposedly it can dissolve nails in a couple of days." Then she looked at me suspiciously. "You haven't been using your Stumble much, have you? The Coca-Cola remedy comes up a lot."
Busted.
I tried to explain that I had been using the StumbleUpon application to rate websites I've visited in the past week or so (you can download the app to your web browser toolbar here). But now I realize that I had been missing the whole point.
While search engines are designed to take you exactly where you want to go, StumbleUpon is designed to take you to a random webpage that has been rated highly by others. There's still an algorithm, but it is composed of humans voicing opinions rather than computers crunching numbers. After each visit, you get to say "I like it!" or "I don't like it!" and your vote will be tallied with the rest.
I still haven't found that page on Coca-Cola cleaning remedies, but I've stumbled upon some amazing content. (e.g. from Esplanade)
http://view.break.com/347555 - Watch more free videos
Whenever it stops raining here, I'll probably grab a can of soda from the fridge and start scrubbing. I'm sure I could probably do a search for the page with proper instructions on how to do it, but that would be missing the point once again. I prefer the anecdotal randomness to my Coca-Cola remedy, as opposed to a search-and-destroy mentality. Truth is, I don't really care if my wipers continue to be referred to as "smearers" by my friend and, besides, the blurry streaks tend to create a nice effect under the streetlights.
If it works, it works. In the meantime, I have to admit that I'm quite impressed with the mechanics of stumbling. It gives me hope that we can actually democratize the music and video industries by applying similar human algorithms relying on unbiased ratings. Maybe someday we'll even get around to elections.
"Something about the acid and carbonation," she said. "Supposedly it can dissolve nails in a couple of days." Then she looked at me suspiciously. "You haven't been using your Stumble much, have you? The Coca-Cola remedy comes up a lot."
Busted.
I tried to explain that I had been using the StumbleUpon application to rate websites I've visited in the past week or so (you can download the app to your web browser toolbar here). But now I realize that I had been missing the whole point.
While search engines are designed to take you exactly where you want to go, StumbleUpon is designed to take you to a random webpage that has been rated highly by others. There's still an algorithm, but it is composed of humans voicing opinions rather than computers crunching numbers. After each visit, you get to say "I like it!" or "I don't like it!" and your vote will be tallied with the rest.
I still haven't found that page on Coca-Cola cleaning remedies, but I've stumbled upon some amazing content. (e.g. from Esplanade)
http://view.break.com/347555 - Watch more free videos
Whenever it stops raining here, I'll probably grab a can of soda from the fridge and start scrubbing. I'm sure I could probably do a search for the page with proper instructions on how to do it, but that would be missing the point once again. I prefer the anecdotal randomness to my Coca-Cola remedy, as opposed to a search-and-destroy mentality. Truth is, I don't really care if my wipers continue to be referred to as "smearers" by my friend and, besides, the blurry streaks tend to create a nice effect under the streetlights.
If it works, it works. In the meantime, I have to admit that I'm quite impressed with the mechanics of stumbling. It gives me hope that we can actually democratize the music and video industries by applying similar human algorithms relying on unbiased ratings. Maybe someday we'll even get around to elections.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Fundamentally Flawed
I have started noticing a group on Facebook called "6 Degrees of Separation - The Experiment"
No, it's not about Kevin Bacon. According to the group's creator, Steve Jackson, it is the "most ambitious facebook experiment ever." I don't think I could explain the purpose of the group quite like Steve himself, so I am reproducing the original description for full comic effect:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are invited to take part in the most ambitious facebook experiment ever...
Using the Six Degrees of Separation theory, I want to see if it's possible to contact every single person on facebook. The theory states that everybody on this planet is separated by only six other people. (it could be argued that we're all only six degrees from Larry Page and Sergey Brin - "The Google Guys"... although I'm guessing it's a lot less than that! LOL).
To take part all you have to do is:
1 Join this group.
2 Click on "Invite People to Join" from the menu on the right.
3 Select all your friends (for the experiment to work, you need to do this).
4 Click on "Send invitation"
It's that simple.
All the best,
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this some kind of joke? This "experiment" will only work if every single Facebook user agrees to join a group in the "Just For Fun" category. But if one single Facebook user decides that it would actually be more fun to make the group fail simply by not joining, then the whole endeavor was a flop. All I can say is that registry of the "Facebook Users Boycotting 6 Degrees of Separation" will commence momentarily.
Think I'm bluffing? Well then....jest on, ye skeptics! The "6 Degrees Group" now has 2,692,713 members in several countries, and after 22 days of existence is currently the single largest Facebook group out there.
-Youareyou
No, it's not about Kevin Bacon. According to the group's creator, Steve Jackson, it is the "most ambitious facebook experiment ever." I don't think I could explain the purpose of the group quite like Steve himself, so I am reproducing the original description for full comic effect:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are invited to take part in the most ambitious facebook experiment ever...
Using the Six Degrees of Separation theory, I want to see if it's possible to contact every single person on facebook. The theory states that everybody on this planet is separated by only six other people. (it could be argued that we're all only six degrees from Larry Page and Sergey Brin - "The Google Guys"... although I'm guessing it's a lot less than that! LOL).
To take part all you have to do is:
1 Join this group.
2 Click on "Invite People to Join" from the menu on the right.
3 Select all your friends (for the experiment to work, you need to do this).
4 Click on "Send invitation"
It's that simple.
All the best,
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this some kind of joke? This "experiment" will only work if every single Facebook user agrees to join a group in the "Just For Fun" category. But if one single Facebook user decides that it would actually be more fun to make the group fail simply by not joining, then the whole endeavor was a flop. All I can say is that registry of the "Facebook Users Boycotting 6 Degrees of Separation" will commence momentarily.
Think I'm bluffing? Well then....jest on, ye skeptics! The "6 Degrees Group" now has 2,692,713 members in several countries, and after 22 days of existence is currently the single largest Facebook group out there.
-Youareyou
Sunday, December 16, 2007
WGA - Won't Go Away
The Writers Guild of America is, admittedly, a hodge-podge organization composed of both starving artists (a.k.a. "waiters") and millionaires who've already established themselves in the cogs of the Hollywood machine. And yet, the very existence of the strike serves to level the playing field for independent content producers, especially those who prefer an internet based distribution model.
Forget commercials. What we need is eyeballs.
Take, for example, the model of Clark and Michael.
People are starting to realize that it's fun to take your laptop to bed. Until Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are back on with fresh commentary (especially in the midst of this election madness) people will learn to be content with the inefficiencies of online content. Although it is sometimes frustrating to constantly see the words "buffering..." in the middle of your favorite programs, it's better than commercials....and way better than reruns.
It will be interesting to see what happens to late night telly in 2008. Until then, all ye content producers, it's time to get busy! My prediction: this WGA business won't go away any time soon.
-Youareyou
Forget commercials. What we need is eyeballs.
Take, for example, the model of Clark and Michael.
People are starting to realize that it's fun to take your laptop to bed. Until Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are back on with fresh commentary (especially in the midst of this election madness) people will learn to be content with the inefficiencies of online content. Although it is sometimes frustrating to constantly see the words "buffering..." in the middle of your favorite programs, it's better than commercials....and way better than reruns.
It will be interesting to see what happens to late night telly in 2008. Until then, all ye content producers, it's time to get busy! My prediction: this WGA business won't go away any time soon.
-Youareyou
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Political Commentary
No doubt you've seen the MySpace page of a friend who has been the victim of comment-chaining by one person. I do my best to interrupt these chains. When one person comments continuously on someone's page, it looks bad. It looks like 1) s/he has no other friends who care, 2) s/he has been very remiss in commenting for other people, or 3) s/he is being stalked.
Proper netiquette requires that, after you make a comment on someone's page, wait for two or three other people to comment before you add another yourself.
Then there's the sensitive issue of comment removal. The most politically correct way to remove a friend's comment from your page is to give him/her apologetic notice, either just before or very soon after you remove it.
This leads me to a final issue: don't leave snarky comments suggesting that your friend is a player. These will probably be removed, apologetically, because "you're blowing up my game."
UPDATE: This blog comment affirms my rule on player comments.
- Sansserif
Proper netiquette requires that, after you make a comment on someone's page, wait for two or three other people to comment before you add another yourself.
Then there's the sensitive issue of comment removal. The most politically correct way to remove a friend's comment from your page is to give him/her apologetic notice, either just before or very soon after you remove it.
This leads me to a final issue: don't leave snarky comments suggesting that your friend is a player. These will probably be removed, apologetically, because "you're blowing up my game."
UPDATE: This blog comment affirms my rule on player comments.
- Sansserif
Friday, December 14, 2007
"Dude, quit Twittering my Facebook!"
A friend of mine (who shall remain nameless) is a bit of a Twitterhead. While this term may not yet sound familiar, I can guarantee that it will soon enter the lexicon of many frustrated Facebook users, for it is a clear violation of Rule #1 of Netiquette Decorum: Thou Shalt Not Spam.
Twitter describes itself as "a service for friends, family, and co–workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?" Random thoughts are the norm on Twitter, as registered users jot down the little things throughout their day that would otherwise go unremembered. Good enough.
The problem is that some genius created a Facebook application that syndicates the RSS feed automatically to all of the offending Twitterhead's friends.
Facebook provides a similar function with its "status updates," which allow users to post short messages to their friends. These tend to be along the lines of "Frank is partying in SF tonight!" or "Jenn is pretending to be busy at work," etc. These messages are typically somewhat interesting, humorous, and relevant (particularly if you are actually friends with the person who is posting). And--most importantly--these messages usually have a shelf life of at least one day, sometimes more.
But what happens when these Twittering RSS feeds go awry? Say, for instance, that I don't want an update every 45 minutes to learn more about my friend's thoughts about his cat, or approximate blood level of caffeine, or length of facial stubble on Monday as opposed to Tuesday. Or, suppose I don't want to spend time deciphering the meaning of the following entry: "XXXXX is twittering: Hello 1:31 am. You look a bit worn around the edges. have you shaved lately? here, let me make you some overpowered coffee."
Yesterday alone, there were 14 entries. The day before, 22. And the worst part is that I, as a Facebook user, cannot opt out of this Twittering madness. You either have to opt out of status updates altogether, or just suck it up and deal.
But I ask you this: what if everyone started synching their Twitter and Facebook accounts? It would be utter chaos--that's what. And the post-modern gentleman never adopts manners that cannot be universalized.
My wikipedia entry on Twitterheads will be forthcoming. In the meantime, I will just have to fight the urge to say, "Dude, quit Twittering my Facebook!"
-Youareyou
Twitter describes itself as "a service for friends, family, and co–workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?" Random thoughts are the norm on Twitter, as registered users jot down the little things throughout their day that would otherwise go unremembered. Good enough.
The problem is that some genius created a Facebook application that syndicates the RSS feed automatically to all of the offending Twitterhead's friends.
Facebook provides a similar function with its "status updates," which allow users to post short messages to their friends. These tend to be along the lines of "Frank is partying in SF tonight!" or "Jenn is pretending to be busy at work," etc. These messages are typically somewhat interesting, humorous, and relevant (particularly if you are actually friends with the person who is posting). And--most importantly--these messages usually have a shelf life of at least one day, sometimes more.
But what happens when these Twittering RSS feeds go awry? Say, for instance, that I don't want an update every 45 minutes to learn more about my friend's thoughts about his cat, or approximate blood level of caffeine, or length of facial stubble on Monday as opposed to Tuesday. Or, suppose I don't want to spend time deciphering the meaning of the following entry: "XXXXX is twittering: Hello 1:31 am. You look a bit worn around the edges. have you shaved lately? here, let me make you some overpowered coffee."
Yesterday alone, there were 14 entries. The day before, 22. And the worst part is that I, as a Facebook user, cannot opt out of this Twittering madness. You either have to opt out of status updates altogether, or just suck it up and deal.
But I ask you this: what if everyone started synching their Twitter and Facebook accounts? It would be utter chaos--that's what. And the post-modern gentleman never adopts manners that cannot be universalized.
My wikipedia entry on Twitterheads will be forthcoming. In the meantime, I will just have to fight the urge to say, "Dude, quit Twittering my Facebook!"
-Youareyou
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Leaving the Building
You've seen it on your Facebook news feed:
"Robin has left the group 'I Love My Pet.'"
"Ryan has removed 'the Rolling Stones' from his music."
And most potent: the broken heart with the line "Jason is now single."
And so it is that the casual adding and dropping of groups, interests, and activities becomes a statement of great and frequently unwarranted significance. You find yourself wondering, What happened to Robin's pet? The change in relationship status is particularly tricky and poses more fundamental questions: Is it meant to be a statement, announcing to everyone that you're back on the market?
I had an uncomfortable IM conversation with a friend who apparently noticed when my relationship status went from "It's Complicated" to "Single." He tiptoed around the issues for a bit: "I'm sorry if this is a privacy invasion...It's none of my business...I was just wondering..." When I realized where he was headed, I admitted it was a statement of sorts.
"I used 'It's Complicated' to avoid unwanted attention," I told him. "Then I met this guy I'm interested in and I wanted to advertise my availability."
But I had wanted it to be more subtle! After I made the status change I "hid" that news because I wanted him to check on my profile and see the change. I learned my lesson: when you "hide" your changes, it only becomes invisible on your own profile. Your news is still broadcast publicly.
Facebook allows you to set the type of news you broadcast. I propose something more nuanced: we should be allowed to explain ourselves.
Robin still loves her pet; she just wanted to clean up her group list.
- Sansserif
"Robin has left the group 'I Love My Pet.'"
"Ryan has removed 'the Rolling Stones' from his music."
And most potent: the broken heart with the line "Jason is now single."
And so it is that the casual adding and dropping of groups, interests, and activities becomes a statement of great and frequently unwarranted significance. You find yourself wondering, What happened to Robin's pet? The change in relationship status is particularly tricky and poses more fundamental questions: Is it meant to be a statement, announcing to everyone that you're back on the market?
I had an uncomfortable IM conversation with a friend who apparently noticed when my relationship status went from "It's Complicated" to "Single." He tiptoed around the issues for a bit: "I'm sorry if this is a privacy invasion...It's none of my business...I was just wondering..." When I realized where he was headed, I admitted it was a statement of sorts.
"I used 'It's Complicated' to avoid unwanted attention," I told him. "Then I met this guy I'm interested in and I wanted to advertise my availability."
But I had wanted it to be more subtle! After I made the status change I "hid" that news because I wanted him to check on my profile and see the change. I learned my lesson: when you "hide" your changes, it only becomes invisible on your own profile. Your news is still broadcast publicly.
Facebook allows you to set the type of news you broadcast. I propose something more nuanced: we should be allowed to explain ourselves.
Robin still loves her pet; she just wanted to clean up her group list.
- Sansserif
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)