Second Life on Terror Alert Plaid

Australia's News Corp. is reporting that there have been a string of terrorist attacks happening in Second Life, as well as training camps. They say that the terrorists are moving their training into the virtual world due to increased security and surveillance. Terrorist groups are training for real world attacks by using the SL. Not only are they training, but they are actually carrying out attacks on targets in SL in order to disrupt and destroy value both online and off. At least, that's what News Corp. is telling us.

I would be interested to know how much research has gone in to seeing if these are actually terrorist groups, of if it's just some 16 year old in Ohio. People that exist in virtual worlds solely to cause problems for other people are known as griefers, and have been around as long as virtual worlds have been. In real life, these people are called bullies. The thing is, now these griefers, or online bullies, have a larger array of tools at their disposal in order to cause problems. As the technology has advanced to allow people to do cooler things in virtual worlds, so has the technology for allowing jerks to be jerks. Now I don't know if these SL attacks are not more sinister, but just because a group calls themselves a terrorist group online doesn't mean they actually are.

I believe that we should all be relieved, though, as law enforcement officials have decided to handle this the best way they know how.

Intelligence and law enforcement agencies in the US and Australia are so
concerned they have established their own reality world games in a bid to gain
the same experiences as the virtual terrorists.

That's right, law enforcement is going to keep you safe by training in virtual worlds too. Boy, I feel better already. I don't think this is really the best way to help, though. If law enforcement really wanted to stop this from happening, they'd be calling up Justin Long to have him write some virus to crash SL and just stop this at the source.

Oh, Snap, Guys! Facebook Keeps Your Private Data Private

It seems that I’m finding more and more people that are complaining about Facebook not being a truly “open” platform because it doesn’t let your information out. By keeping all of your data private, and within their system, they aren’t truly open. Or so the theory goes. I’ve written before on what I think about that. I’m not talking just about whether or not we can call it open, though. I’m talking about people complaining that user’s data is kept inside the system. I’m willing to admit that I might be missing something here, but to me, this sounds like the stupidest complaint I’ve ever heard about Facebook. I am baffled at why people would be upset that a company keeps your information so private. Isn’t privacy a big topic right now? Isn’t a company that keeps all your data under tight lock and key a good thing? Facebook isn’t selling this information, they aren’t letting people just gather all this information to use for their own purposes, they are just keeping everything locked up. I don’t want Google to be indexing my Facebook page. I don’t want someone to be able to download all of my data in a convenient Excel file. I should probably point out that this “closed” system they have didn’t use to exist. There was a time where you could click a button and download everything. I actually have a file with about 41,000 people’s contact info in it that I got years ago. It was just a simple export from Facebook. Tell me, do you really want them to go back to that? I’m perfectly happy with Facebook keeping my data behind closed doors, and I’m willing to bet that nearly all of its users feel the same way. I think that the vocal people complaining are definitely the minority view, but it concerns me that they are so vocal. The very people generating all of the buzz for Facebook are also the ones that are saying this. So please, someone explain to me why this would be a good thing for everyone. Either that, or stop complaining about it, and start complementing Facebook for keeping my stuff private.

Middle America Hit by Movie Piracy

So NBC is looking out for all of the corn farmers of America. Hear that, Iowa? NBC's got you back. How does NBC show its support for our corn growing friends? Simple, they argue that ISPs need to install filtering software to cut down on movie piracy so that more people will go to movie theaters and buy more popcorn, of course. See, it all makes sense now. Apparently, corn farmers are in trouble, and NBC doesn't want them to get hurt (never mind the high price of corn due to ethanol, or massive farm subsidies). I think that we should applaud NBC for such a noble move. Clearly, we're hurting our corn farmers, and that's almost as bad as funding terrorists. Thanks NBC.

Be Careful When Emailing That Illegal Stuff

A court has ruled that the government can legally obtain the IPs of your internet traffic, and the header information from emails without a warrant. So when Uncle Sam wants to see what you're up to, they don't need permission to do it...sorta. The exact details of the ruling were not explained, but that's not really the part I care about. I got to talking to a friend about this, and was saying that obtaining the to/from addresses on an email is not all that different from obtaining the to/from addresses on a letter. While there is no examining of the content of the letter, one only has to look at the envelope in order to see this information. What is important is that the court's ruling means that there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy on these email addresses. To me, this seems like (here's where I point out that I have no legal knowledge on this at all) one would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from the government when sending a letter via USPS either. Arter all, every piece of mail already is getting scanned for routing purposes, so technically speaking government computers are already looking at to/from addresses of your mail. The difference, of course, is the use of that information. Also, currently, unless there's something I don't know, the government doesn't actually have any way of recording this info. Back to the point, though, I wouldn't think that to assume that email wouldn't be protected is that far of a stretch, since I'm assuming snail mail isn't, given the reason I just said (again, if this is just flat out wrong, point it out please).

He Said, She Said

As many of you have probably noticed by now, all of internet radio did not disappear on July 15. There was a rough agreement reached that would allow the majority of net radio stations to continue broadcasting. However, the broadcasters are now claiming that SoundExchange really wanted them to implement DRM, and now they're using the new fees as leverage to make it happen. SoundExchange says that the broadcasters aren't telling the whole truth, but they won't actually address anything that DiMA (Digital Media Association, the broadcasters basically) is saying. On the flip side, DiMA hasn't actually come right out and said anything specific about what is being requested. Essentially, we have two groups that are just bickering about what is happening. As a consumer, I'm obligated to side with DiMA, but I really wish everyone would just be more open about what is going on. I can easily see there being truth to what DiMA is saying, given history. Why SoundExchange won't just come out and address things makes me wonder, though. I mean, everyone already hates them, is there really any risk in them telling us more?

This iPhone Review Is Better Than You

I love Maddox. He provides, hands down, the best summary of the iPhone yet published.

Kottke Is Wrong...Sorta

Oh goodness, where to even begin here. I started off with reading a post on Read/Write Web about how open Facebook really is. This started off by saying that despite their claims, Facebook really is not as open as they claim. MacManus says that he found that most people agree Facebook is not an open platform in the true sense. I only half agree with this one. When I hear Facebook say that they are an “open” platform, I interpret that as meaning that they are a welcoming platform. They allow developers write applications for, and integrate with, their platform. Rather than an iPhone, they are a desktop computer, for instance. By the same token that Windows, OSX and Linux are not “open” in that just writing something for one does not make it work on all, Facebook is not “open” either. What is important here, though, is that Facebook is the only social network service that has a large user base, and welcomes outside development. So while it could be accurate to say that Facebook is not open, I don’t see this as being as bad as it might sound. Also, I don’t think that Facebook is in error by calling themselves open, as I think they are referring to their welcoming developers.

Next, the article goes on to examine a point made by Jason Kottke that Facebook is the new AOL. Again, I’m not sure if I fully agree here. I think that they share similarities, in that they are something of a walled garden. The difference, I believe, is that Facebook’s “wall” is permeable. Many applications that have been created are tie-ins from other outside sources. For instance, with an application for Flickr, users can pull in outside data, and integrate it with their Facebook profile. This works both ways. There are other apps that take things you do in Facebook, and then tie those into their own external sites. This flow of information is far from a true walled garden. Kottke goes on to say that part of what makes Facebook so closed is that the data on it is completely private, and not even indexed by search sites. I have to wonder just what Kottke is smoking. Who would want their profile pages indexed? This is one of my annoyances with MySpace. I don’t want my Facebook information available on Google. I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of people agree with me on this one. Jason seems to find fault with the fact that interaction happens in private. That is part of the appeal of Facebook, not a hindrance. This is also where it does tie back to AOL, though. The difference is in the flow of information via the apps that are created; the similarity is in user information. To me, this is a pretty nice blend.

MacManus concludes that Facebook is a good development platform, but is not an open form. He goes on to answer the question of how this matters by pointing out that closed platforms don't end well, pointing out AOL and Microsoft. On AOL, I believe that Facebook demonstrates enough of a difference to have a much better chance at success. Remember, AOL failed for multiple reasons, not just because they were a walled garden. Added to this that Facebook isn't a true walled garden, I don't think foreshadowing AOL's fate is a fair comparison. As for Microsoft, aren't all operating systems inherently closed platforms based on the standards people are applying to Facebook? By that account, I think Microsoft is doing alright for themselves while still being a closed system.
What are your thoughts? Am I way off the mark on this one?

Hate Ads? Don't Just Get Over It

I think we're all well aware of how I feel about advertising. What is interesting, though, is that while I completely despise it, I'll admit that it is the bad apples that are spoiling it for everyone else. If it weren't for the annoying car commercials, I wouldn't mind TV ads all that much. If it weren't for flashing banner ads, I wouldn't be so opposed to online ads. It is because these forms of advertising exist that I hate it. Jeremiah Owyang writes about how people that hate advertising need to get over it. I don't really agree. His first point is that it isn't going to be going away. I'm fine with that, and I'm not so stupid as to think it would. What I want to go away are the ones that fall into his other point about the shotgun approach. Ads are like shotguns, in that it just gets thrown out there, and even if you weren't the ad's target, you still might get hit. These are the ones I want to go away. Obviously, these won't just disappear altogether, but I'm all for it moving more towards what he calls the laser approach. When an ad has a precise target, and that target is all that is hit. When this is precisely tailored, you get a situation where everyone wins. The consumer, me, only sees items that are of interest. The advertiser doesn't waste money shooting their ad to everyone, even though not everyone is interested. This means that a much higher percentage of those that see the ad are likely to buy their product. If I see ads for refinancing, I'm just going to tune them out. This means that someone just wasted money for me to see their ad, and have absolutely zero chance of getting a customer. This is why I have no problem using all of Google's personalized services. If they are going to show me ads, I want them to at least be something that interests me. And really, those little text ads they do, they don't bother me at all. I rarely even notice them, and have actually even clicked on a few because they are relevant to me.
Now I did say that I don't wholly agree with him, and here's where I don't. He says to just "get over it" to those of us that despise ads. I don't think that we should, though. If people simply accepted that ads are there, and didn't complain about them, then there isn't as much incentive for advertisers to change things. Sure they still have the driving force of attempting to make more profitable advertising, but without consumers giving feedback, they won't have all the data to go on. Of course, this battle would be won a lot easier if there weren't idiots in the world that actually did try to hit the bouncing monkey. I stand by my opinion, though, that if we don't like what they're throwing at us, we shouldn't just sit patiently and hope that they change it, we should help to try to facilitate the change.

Women Are Stupid

Ok, so in fairness, people are stupid, not just women, but this clip is pretty specific. I saw the old thing again today about the petition asking people to ban dihydrogen monoxide, and that made me remember the video I saw years ago where the kid asks girls to sign a petition to ban women's suffrage. Now, I'm guessing that he edited out the girls that knew what he was talking about, but it is hilarious none the less. What's so funny is that the only person in the clip that voices what it really is is a guy. There is one girl that says no, so we can give her credit too. All in all, though, I think that this is nice evidence that maybe we should end women's suffrage, and while we're at it the dihydrogen monoxide example is fine proof that we should just deny those people water.

Easily Distracted

As is often the case, when I find something, get myself sidetracked off of it for whatever reason. This is exactly what happened when I was going to post about an article that was sent to me. The article was on MSN Money Central, but I noticed that it said it was originally from the Christian Science Monitor. I didn't want to post to something that was just an exact reprint of something else (I don't mind posting to a blog or something because it at least adds some commentary), so I decide to get the link for the original. Once I got there, I found that they split the article onto two pages. This is not a long piece, by any means. There is no reason to break it up. This practice pisses me off like you wouldn't believe. I seem to be finding it more and more often while reading online. It seems like places are splitting things across multiple pages with no real justification (for the user, that is, I'll explain in a sec). I have seen lists of things posted where they stick each item on its own page. It isn't even done in a slide slow fashion, like Forbes will do, but rather just their full page is used. So I'll see something that has 5 pages, each one full of crap. Ah, and there is reasoning I said I'd explain. You see, when they break it apart across multiple pages, that means that their site is generating more hits. Every time you click the next page, it is another pageview. Not only does this inflate the numbers they'll show for their site, it inflates the numbers for ad views. When you make someone go through five pages, that is five times more views on the ads than would have otherwise been received. Personally, I think it is a horrible, despicable practice. All it does is aggravate the reader. Honestly, would anyone say that they'd prefer to have the content on multiple pages instead of one? I'm to the point now that if I see they've spread the piece out across multiple pages, I just stop reading it. The only exception is when it is actually a longer piece that is broken up to not be so daunting, or when the content is just really superb. What about you guys? Anyone else pissed off about this practice?



Oh, and for those of you curious, here is the article. I'm linking the MSN one for obvious reasons. I've lost all interest in wanting to talk about it, though.

How Hyper Can You Get

Energy Fiend is a site that is dedicated to talking about the caffeine content in drinks. They list off the amount of caffeine found in just about any popular (and even some unpopular) drinks out there. For example, did you know that a 12 oz can of Diet Coke with lemon has 45 mg of caffeine in it? One little thing that they have on the site, though, that is just tons of fun is the calculator to see how much of a certain drink will you need to drink to kill you. For instance, I would need a little over 100 cups of brewed coffee to put me down. Really, though, I don't have too much to worry about, since my drink of choice is Sprite.

Looks Like Things Are Getting Better

So I posted a while ago about the good news regarding net radio. I've since seen this post on Pandora's site that seems to confirm it. It points to a post by Ken Dardis that does a good job summing up what's going on. The gist is that stations that have been paying royalties, and really do want to continue to pay something that is fair will be able to continue to do so, for the time being. This is great for sites like Pandora that are legit and trying to do what's best for everybody involved. Ken says he's keeping the champagne on ice for now, and I think he's right, but this definitely goes to show that there is hope.

Good News Everybody

I guess that I might have spoke too soon yesterday when I said it look really bad for net radio. In an announcement that I assume was made lat yesterday/last night, SoundExchange said that they would not enforce the increased fees on Monday, as they originally were going to do. While this is no save for everyone, it is definitely a good thing to hear, if for no other reason that it giving people more time to try to fight the new fees. I haven’t had time to look into this a lot today, so I’m not sure if there was a reason given for why SoundExchange did this, but I’ll be sure to post once I find out.

Goodbye Net Radio, We Hardly Knew Ye

Today was a sad day for those of us that actually care about music. The Court of Appeals denied a motion that would push back the the new royalty payments for online broadcasters. I know that I sound like a broken record, but I do not see how anyone in their right mind can think that this is a good idea. Exactly what part of this is going to beneficial to anyone? It isn't even like it is something that will benefit the music industry. All they are going to do is kill off a revenue stream. Internet radio is far, far from piracy, but I have to wonder if that is how they see it. In all honesty, the only difference I can see between net radio and terrestrial radio is that with the net I am able to listen to a wider variety of music. Apparently, that's a bad thing. I'm still hoping for some kind of 11th hour save here, but I'm really thinking it isn't likely. And I understand that this isn't going to wipe out every single net radio station overnight (for instance, Pandora has already said they could pay the bill, but don't know if their business plan is actually viable afterwards), but it will be killing off a lot of the smaller stations. The kicker to all this is that the ones being punished are the ones that are trying to be legit in their broadcasting. If you're just sending out a rogue signal, you couldn't care less about this. Once again, the entertainment industry demonstrates their complete lack of intelligence.

The Most Comprehensive iPhone Review Ever

After nearly a week of silence, I am back, and with the most comprehensive review of the iPhone available. Ars has got nothing on me. I offer to you my extensive review after my long five minutes spent with the device. That’s right, five minutes was all it took to come up with this.
First, I’ll start by saying that part of me really has wanted the iPhone to be horrible, and for everyone that bought one to regret it. This is based solely on my disliking of the personality of Apple and its fan base. The other part of me, though, really wanted the iPhone to do well. This is based on the fact that it sounds awesome. The concept behind it is pretty neat, and it looked like it had some great potential.
Now then, for be brief impressions. First and foremost is that I am apparently wrong about everything. Anything that felt natural or intuitive to me is just wrong according to Apple. The way I held the phone? Wrong. The way I tried to type? Wrong. The way I tried to scroll through lists? Wrong.
The very first thing I tried out before anything else was the rotation of the screen. I wanted to see just how smooth the transition actually was, since I’d heard good things. However, holding the phone how I hold any other phone doesn’t work. I would rotate the thing, and it didn’t register that I had turned it. At first I thought I was just doing something wrong. Like maybe I was using some hidden version of Safari that doesn’t support landscape mode. I decided to try it out on other applications. All of them came up the same. It just wouldn’t work. At this point I started vocalizing my frustration, and the guy next to me told me to tilt the phone. So I tilted it up, and sure enough, that did it. Now, I fully understand the logistical reasoning behind this, but what gets me is that once I turned it to the "proper" angle, it was no longer natural feeling. Like I said, though, maybe I'm just naturally wrong.
The next thing on my list to check out was the keyboard. Obviously, this has been where a lot of the curiosity has been focused. The question everyone is asking is, "Will it work?" The answer, for me, is no. Let me preface this with telling you that I don't own a smartphone. I don't have a QWERTY keypad on any mobile device. That said, when I go into a store to try one out, I can type pretty darn fast right from the get go. I hold it how it feels natural, and type with both of my thumbs. My attempts to do this on the iPhone met with disaster. Nothing I attempted to type like this was correct. I would not lift one thumb up fast enough before I hit the next key. I would aim for one key but some other one got it. I repeatedly had the space, backspace, and return get pressed simply by holding the phone. Now I know what you're thinking, "But Jeremy, Steve & Co. said to start off typing with just one finger, and getting used to the keyboard." To that I say, "Why?" Why should I have to "learn" how to use a QWERTY keyboard when I can use any other one out there with no problems whatsoever. Not only that, but I do a lot of texting on my phone, and not having to look at it is very nice. Even if I got used to where the keys were, and could theoretically type without looking, I'd still need to check it because I have no way of knowing if what I'm typing is actually getting typed. If I can type quickly, with no learning curve, on a physical keypad, what's the incentive to learn to use this one?
The other big thing I played with was Safari. This is an incredibly awesome mobile web browser...when it's working. There have been various reports floating around in reviews about how Safari can be a little crash happy. For me, this was an extreme. I think it crashed somewhere around two dozen or so times while I was using it. There were only about three times that I clicked a link and the new page loaded. Every other time, if I clicked a link, the browser crashed. Given that reopening the browser takes you back to where you were, it's not enough to incite homicidal rage. However, it was enough to cause me to yell at the stupid thing loud enough that a lot of people looked my way. It was very aggravating, and if I were trying to surf the web with it, I would get pissed a lot. The problem is that the browsing experience is so great when it works, that if they can stabilize the thing they'll be rocking.
I tried to do most of my browsing using the EDGE network in order to see just how it felt. Since my browser crashed so many times, I didn't really get a good feel for it, though. I did, however, manage to get a speed test page to eventually work. What I got was something like 113k down. I was fairly impressed by this, given what I was expecting. It could be, though, that Dallas is one of the places that gets better reception than others. When I tried the speed test on WiFi I got something like 600k, for comparison. I could actually live with the 100k or so, if that was consistent. I do use Sprint right now, though, and my phone does have the ability to take advantage of the nice speeds. I can stream video and have it come in crisp and lag free. I got about 300k on my phone, for those curious. Note that I also only ran these tests once, so it's pretty unscientific.
The other peeve I had with the phone was navigating lists. Now this could be something that is easily changed with a setting, but I dind't get a chance to look, so if that's the case then forgive me. So when I loaded up something that had a long list of items (music, call history, photos), instinct kicks in and I try to scroll down the list. Nope, wrong again. You have to drag, not scroll, the lists. Is this something that causes a lot of frustration? Of course not. My point, though, is that it's just one more little thing that goes against my intuition. I guess that's why Apple says to think different.
All in all, it was a very pretty device. I think that they made some brilliant moves with it: optical glass screen that basically will no scratch. And some big blunders with it: horrible email, for example. A lot of the things that people dislike can, and likely will, be changed via a software update. That's great and all, but why weren't a lot of these things included to begin with? A software update should fix bugs, and things that they never thought of. It should not fix things that are standard on a free with rebate phone. It shouldn't correct a mail application that feels like it was an afterthought. There are so many things that I have to think Apple made a conscious decision to exclude that just baffle me. I can understand that this is not your ordinary phone, and that it's suppose to change things, but for cryin' out loud, don't include a camera but no MMS support. I mean, seriously here people.
It's important to see that I looked at this solely from a "Will I like it" perspective, and not a "Will most people like it" angle. That said, I still don't think I could recommend anyone buy this right now. Maybe later when they've fixed some things and the price comes down it'll be worth it. Right now, though, it definitely is not. The biggest problem of all is that it is AT&T only right now. I would definitely wait until they are taken out of the picture.
In seriousness, if you are interested in getting a really good picture of the phone, check out the Ars review I linked to at the top. They cover just about everything and then some.

RSS Bankruptcy

A trend that came about quite a while back was to declare "email bankruptcy." Merlin Mann has written about it a few times, and debates its actual usefulness. I'm not here to talk about email bankruptcy, though, right now I'm all about RSS bankruptcy. As you may have noticed, I've been MIA for the last seven days or so. This is our busy time at work, so I haven't read anything while here, and after work I've just been swamped with other stuff. Add in there the holiday, and I haven't had time to read anything, let alone write a post. So I'm thinking that I just need to clear all of the items in my Reader and start over. I've got thousands of items out there that I'd love to read, but it simply isn't feasible to do that. Unfortunately, this is the week that would have been filled with iPhone reviews, and I would have enjoyed reading them (after all, how else can I legitimately bash on the device). So, I apologize for the void, hopefully next week will be better.