C0rk.W0rd

Feeding Frenzy (A different Take on Facebook's New FEED Feature)

Some of you may have read my cautionary tail about facebook being some kind of crazy CIA funded intelligence gathering tool, and despite my not being able to disprove that, I'm actually commenting on something different tonight.

Regular users of facebook may have noticed the facelift the site received sometime today. A blog on facebook does a pretty good job of explaining the new feature, so I won't bore you with the details of what it is, what it does, and how it works (that's what links are for).

The addition of this feature has generated a number of complaints from long time users who have gone sofar as to threaten to leave the site. Talking with some friends directly, they're simply uncomfortable with the transparency these feeds create. Friends can now see all the activities going on among members of their social networks. While I'll admit that I found the depth of what was provided somewhat troubling, I am inclined to play devils advocate, and point out some of the things users should consider before they point fingers at facebook's developers ...

Perhaps one of the most troubling realities with social networking sites like facebook and myspace is that users tend to forget that this is still the "internets" --- You know... the series of tubes. The semi-educated among us learned long ago to think long an hard before putting anything up on the net that might present problems later -- "Everything on the net is discoverable." Some of us learned this faster than others. Nevertheless, the social networking sites of today have created an illusion of privacy which users are unknowingly apathetic towards or simply choose to ignore outright ...

If you're looking for information on anyone 16-28yrs where do you think you'll find more information... A Search Engine ? Or myspace? Or facebook ? -- Now what if you had their resume. Pretty easy wouldn't you say?

... I don't mean to suggest that people that put personal details online are foolish or downright stupid. I myself disclose a great deal about myself via the net, but have always done so with the notion that anyone with the time a motivation could discover these details. But now lets assume that systems like facebook are impenetrable, and that your information is only available to those you've defined as 'friend' -- Even with this layer of ignorance in place, facebook users are still outraged? - about their own naiveté one might suspect.

Consider that the information you're so 'outraged' about being presented is information that any of your 'friends' would be privy to when they visit your profile. So you're basically angry that facebook has made it easier to access information that users already had access to? Information that you voluntarily supplied in the first place and knowingly presented for public display. There is a false sense of privacy WITHIN the false sense of privacy. Users make the assumption that their 'friends' lack the time and motivation to 'check-in' for changes as frequently and effectively as this feed mechanism. While this probably and accurate assumption, it is certainly not a safe one it re-confirms this 'false sense of privacy'.

Most facebook users login daily to see what is happening with their network of friends, not to make modifications to their own profile (although this could occur in the same visit as a result of a 'friends-page' visit). The feed simply supplies the information they're already seeking in a chronological and easy to understand fashion with links to the appropriate pages, should they require more details. These items are perfectly easy to ignore should they choose.

In the grand scheme of things, I can understand why people feel the way they do about this new feature. It brings information and events which they could previously pretend were anonymous and invisible to the attention of others. It's worth pointing out that despite the lack of privacy customizations available which pertain to this NEW feature, facebook does supply a number of privacy mechanisms which are underutilized. This leads me to the unexpected benefits which would emerge from the abrupt presentation of this feature ...

• Users must face reality when it comes to the information they present about themselves online -- make appropriate changes to ensure they're only sharing details they're comforable sharing
• Those previously ignorant to facebook's privacy features will utilize them (as they should) to restrict access to their information -- hopefully this will not serve to reinforce that false sense of privacy I mentioned before... It's still the Internet
• Friend-Addictions will be fought as members re-evaluate who they've included as friends -- You can no longer assume that they're NOT reading about your life 24x7

... There are about a dozen more points I would like to make about this recent fiasco, but I fear I might go on too long if I haven't already. Suffice it to say that those who are outraged about this new functionality need to take a look at themselves, think about what information they're making available and to whom, and consider their own 'voyeuristic' adventures before assuming that their 'friends' aren't taking regular note of changes to their profile.

Please bear in mind that I still consider this new functionality surprisingly freaky, but take issue with those who view this as a gross and perverse (overstep) by facebook. Because I know I haven't addressed all possible lines of argument, I await your critiques that I might address in the comments section or in proceeding posts.

Cold Turkey

"And like so many addicts about to face cold turkey, our leaders are now committing violent crimes to get what little is left of what we’re hooked on." - Kurt Vonnegut

I'm not usually one for posting quotes, but it's Vonnegut, and therefore quote-worthy. I'm a VERY busy man right now, and not in a position to give you much more than this.

Taken from here

The Triumph Brewing Company

(I apologize in advance for the contents of this post, I've been really stressed out lately, and this may be a byproduct of said stress)

Chaz, Gina, and I went to the Triumph Brewing Co. last night to see BD Mylo & The Go Daddys (some poor quality pictures available in m0b). It was in Princeton, NJ... and yes, we had to drive through campus to get there. The place was very "posh", not your typical brew pub, and certainly nothing like the LongTrail. It sort of felt like a COSI on acid. The food looked good, but we didn't eat there, and they had a nice selection of single malt scotch in addition to the beer. I tried a sampler, but wasn't too impressed with the beer. It left a funny aftertaste in my mouth. Though the Jewish Rye Beer was VERY interesting... it tasted like caraway (spelling) seeds.

Anyway, it was really expensive (7.50 for a Bushmills and 8.00 for a Baileys -- New York Prices... but hey... It's Princeton, my jaw got a little stiff just being there), but also very nice. We sat on the 2nd level looking down on the band, pretty cool. The pics aren't that good, so I guess you'll just have to go and check it out yourself.

You ever get the feeling that when you're around brainiacs (like those going to Princeton) or at least "people that come from money" that they can sort of tell you're 2nd class just by looking at you? It's not that I feel inferior... but I guess it sort of relates to the UPENN thing. UPENN people are really nice to Drexel folk, the girls especially --- probably because you're not like many of the pretty/rich/privileged douches patrolling that campus --- but then when you tell them you go to Drexel, they react like they've been rudely hoodwinked.... very odd indeed. I believe the expression is "smelly Drexel"... anyway... where was I going with this...

Oh yea --- Triumph... pretty neat, BD Mylo & The Go Daddys, superb per usual. The night in general --- excellent, felt like I actually DID something other than sit around V-Town.

I seem to be rambling uncontrollably here... but this is the last thing I promise. While I was hating everyone cuz I assumed they were judging me, I was doing some judging of my own. (what do you know... a double standard... im not going to try to defend myself on this one... we're all guilty of it sometime or another, and at least I don't claim to be above it) There was this guy wearing a suit, but with a vintage "style" t-shirt, which was probably purchased at Abercrombie and Fitch.... ok .. and he had black hair down to his mid back, and on his head he was sporting a blue bandana/do-rag -- but like one of those "long" ones (think Steven Van Zandt).. and to top it all off, he was complimenting this whole ensemble with red/tan bowling shoes. If you're going to walk around trying to look like Steve Van Zandt, you better fucking BE Steven Van Zandt... not some theatrical trouser stain from an Ivy League School. And I'm pretty sure if Steve Van Zandt found out he had a look-alike roaming around Princeton University of all places, he'd be breaking his Asbury Park FOOT (yes, I just used Asbury Park as and adjective) off in your ass --- wait he's a Buddhist... so maybe not... but that doesn't make you any less of a tool. It look a lot of energy, on my part, not to yell something along the lines of "god damn, you're so fucking "different"... I just HAVE to get to know you, because surely, with a get up like that, you're personality must be so vibrant and unique, that you don't need to resort to cheap visual ploys to attract attention." --- I really don't hate everyone... ok maybe that is the understatement of the year (insert laugh)... I'm just a natural social critic who is probably compensating for his own lack of confidence by passive-aggressively ridiculing people through his blog... ok, it's official... I've lost my fucking mind (this may qualify as stream of consciousness)

The 10 Minute (10-Minute) Rule

I was sitting in ISYS355 waiting to see if the teacher showed up --- Several of my classmates and I began discussing the infamous 10-minute rule. There was disagreement over whether it was in fact a 10-minute rule or 15-minute rule. I had always heard 10-minute. Regardless, our teacher showed up, and the portion of us who didn’t split after 10 were forced to endure another night of lecture. I’m a little too guilt stricken to walk out on a class when I still think there is a chance of the professor showing up. With little else to do, I decided to investigate the 10-minute rule phenomenon. To my surprise, there was nothing available online documenting this seemingly universal rule… I hereby take the initiative:

The 10 Minute (10-Minute) Rule – According to C0rk
If the instructor/professor/teacher for a given class has not arrived at the class location/room/venue within 10 minutes of the scheduled class start-time, all students are thereby waived from their obligation to remain in the classroom. Furthermore, students who choose to depart are not to be penalized academically or otherwise. As proof of presence, departing students can add their signature to a sheet to be left behind, should the professor arrive at a later time.

I suppose I have done some kind of public service in this, so I’m going to go pat myself on the back for my insight into the staggering complexity of human behavior.

I'm not one for posting quotes... it's a cop out... but here it is anyway

"The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, withou a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history. "

-Robert A. Heinlein

He's BACK, but this time INDEPENDENT

I do not think that Nader will have a significant impact on the upcoming election. Many democrats are quick to poo poo Nader, claiming that he is responsible for Al Gore's loss in the previous election, and that the left-ist followers he has would be better served by voting for the democratic nominee who actually stands a chance against Bush. Though this is a concern, I think whatever voters gave their vote to Nader last time around (on the Green ticket), allowing Bush to slip ahead of Gore, will heed the lesson.

I think it is important that their be a viable 3rd party in this country. Hell, I would really like to see a 4th and a 5th, but I don't think this election is any kind of proving ground. There is an urgency on the left to ensure that Bush is removed from office, and their is separation that needs to be made between passion and practicality. It is practical for Nader to forego this election in the seemingly universal leftist interest of removing president Bush from office. Nader is not running to win, he can't win... no, don't even try to argue with me about it --- HE CAN'T. Nader's running is even more disturbing because he's running Independent. At least in the previous election he was running on the Green ticket, which ALMOST resulted in another "real" political party, which is something I think this country needs. His entry into THIS election does not serve this need. Independents represent no party. At least with the Greens where was hope of a small payoff.

If Nader plays to the left, won't this hurt democratic chances?

Citizens who gave their votes to Nader in the last election, did so for a variety of reasons that I just assume not discuss at length. I am fairly confident that regardless of the reasoning of individual voters, the majority of Nader votes were cast by informed persons from the left. It was impossible to foresee the disastrous effects of the Nader/Gore split. I am reasonably certain that the lesson was learned, and that Nader will received FAR FEWER votes than he did previously. Though I appreciate his dedication, I think Nader is making a bad choice for HIMSELF rather than the voting population. His decision to run will result in his name being drug through the mudd, especially if Bush goes on to another term. I think his days, as a civil servant will be numbered following this election, which is a shame because I consider him a semi-decent statesman.

On Election Day American's do 1 of 3 things - vote, don't vote, or vote stupidly. Citizens having voted for Nader in the previous election could not predict the outcome, but having seen what happened --- they will not make the same mistake again. Anyone who votes for Nader this election is voting stupidly, but I think the events of the last four years have made the left get smart awful quick. With any luck, the only stupid votes will be from "would-be" Republicans.

"Straight From Vermont" (get it?)

Just when I thought things couldn't get any worse, Bush has decided to try and amend the constitution. The amendment Bush supports would make same sex marriages a matter of NATIONAL policy, thereby removing State's rights to choose their own policies in this regard. This is a bold and decisive move by Bush who is not above admitting that the recent stream of gay marriages taking place in California had an effect on his decision. In case you hadn’t guessed Bush considers same sex marriage “an abomination”.

This request by Bush is monumental in that it will mark only the 2nd time in history, that a constitutional amendment would restrict citizen’s rights rather than extend them. The first of course was the 18th amendment, which enacted prohibition, and we all know what a success THAT was. For organized crime... I mean.

So where do you stand c0rk?

I support EVERYONE's right to civil unions. The notion of marriage is one seeded in religion, and you cannot legislate church policy. However, same sex unions/codependency deserves the same recognition under the law as man-woman codependency. To claim that these privileges imply that some form of moral code must be met in determining what is appropriate and what is not is just plain absurd. There seems to be lack of morality when it comes to many of the reality television programs that grace the airwaves. Joe Millionaire, The Bachelor, World's Smallest Groom, and My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancé ??? --- All of these shows make a mockery of this "sacred union" that everyone is making such a stink about. Are these really accepted as normal while real love is being labeled an "abomination"?

Frankly, I think the very notion of Marriage is on its way out. With a divorce rate above 50% and a growing national interest in civil unity, I think it is only a matter of time before Marriage is considered ABnormal. While the conservatives run to biology claiming that same sex (anything) is unnatural, I simply enjoy pointing out that 'monogamy' is unnatural. I will concede that you won't find many in the animal kingdom that chose to mate with animals of the same gender. However, you're equally unlikely to find a trace of monogamy. We're most certainly the only species on the planet that chooses or seeks monogamy in the name of supposed morality.

So what are you? Some kind of swinger?

No, having been born in the culture that I was, I have a natural tendency for wanting a monogamous relationship, though I am not beyond admitting that it feels a tad unnatural at times. Choosing to ignore what I see as a growing trend, however, is something I simply have no capacity for.

At the end of the day who people choose to love and be with is their own business. Civil liberties need to be flexible to accommodate all walks of life including same sex couples. As for the church or other religious institutions recognizing such things... well, I wouldn't hold my breath. Still, the business of people’s sexual preference is their own, and it is relatively harmless business. If your personal moral code has no room for same sex couples well that's just fine. My moral code has no room for religion, yet religious establishments are still not required to pay taxes. I don’t slaughter church goers in the streets and call their penchant for god, scripture and monogamy primitive, foolish, and naive because in the end, their moral code has little to no effect on how I choose to live MY life.

The issue of same sex marriages is just another instance of religion-implied morality being optioned in the determination of public policy. The idea in and of itself nullifies the tenants of this country, which makes a distinction between church and state. Grow up America gays are here to stay. Though I do wonder how Dick Cheney is dealing with all this… (FYI – his daughter is a lesbian).

I Just thought this was funny... I have no love for Clinton... but at least he's a real politician.

MPAA vs. 321 Studios

The world of consumer rights has just been dealt a major blow by a California court. 321 Studios, the manufacturers of the popular DVD X Copy software have been ordered to stop shipping/selling their product by weeks end (02/27/2004). For many, DVD X Copy was the first user-friendly means of backing up purchased DVD's, and as such, was subject to a great deal of scrutiny from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). 321 Studios is poised to appeal the ruling which is laden with controversy... here is why...

The initial ruling was based on the MPAA's insistence that the DVD X Copy software was illegal because is violated elements of the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). The DMCA has been the topic of heated debate ever since its inception in 1998. I have read the Act in its entirety and it is arguably one of the most ambiguous things I've ever absorbed. The MPAA's main argument concerns security encryption circumvention. Essentially, the DMCA says that any efforts to thwart/circumvent (crack) any form of encryption are illegal. This is a problem for DVD X Copy, because the software effectively dispenses with the CSS (Content Scrambling System) developed to encrypt retail DVD content, allowing users to then extract copyrighted material. It's not looking very good for 321 Studios is it?... well not so fast... there is more...

321's appeal will certainly focus on the DMCA's "fair use" clause. Unfortunately, the fair use clause is probably the most vague and ambiguous portion of the DMCA. The general interpretation is that it is "fair use" to allow customers to circumvent encryption to copy copyrighted works, so long as the intent is for personal use or investment protection. The idea is essentially this... I bought a DVD, and I want an extra copy in case something should happen to the original. I buy DVD X Copy, and I am able to create backups to protect my investment.

Of course the grey area here is the legality of marketing a product that enables consumers to break encryption for "fair use" purposes. There is also the MPAA's argument that the software exceeds the capacity of "fair use" because it is being used to mass-produce and distribute their copyrighted products.

In 321 Studios defense, they are acting in the best interest of the consumer, and in no way intentionally contributing to DVD piracy. Their software was conceived in the interest of 'fair use' and is employed as such by thousands of Americans. The illegality resides at the consumer level unfortunately. If I sit in my basement all night churning out copies of Spider-Man so that I can go sell them on eBay… well then I'm turning a copyrighted material into my own little profit center, and that is wrong. This is the story that the MPAA was successfully able to sell to the California court. The problem is that there is no data to back up the claim this shady business model is being pursued by a significant number of Americans… nor that any copies being generated are depleting legitimate DVD revenue... explain?... happy to...

The DVD format has been nothing but a gem to the movie industry. With superior quality video and a reasonable price DVD's have been flying off store shelves. In fact, the Blockbuster video rental chain is being forced to close down numerous locations and reorganize their business to emphasize the retail instead of the rental because customers are more likely to BUY DVD's, not rent them. The evidence of declining sales the RIAA used to peddle its case against song swappers, is simply not valid in the DVD model. DVD sales are not only on the rise, but accelerating each year as the price of DVD players hit rock bottom, and the DVD customer base grows by leaps and bounds. DVD copy software like DVD X Copy has done very little to damage the sale of DVD's in this country. The reality is that the DVD format is appealing enough to the consumer to warrant its reasonable price point. Bargain shoppers can find many of their favorite DVD's for $10 or less. That is cheaper than most audio CD's!!!

The DVD beast has swallowed American's whole and the MPAA is just after a little more than they deserve. Like the RIAA, the MPAA is a rich and powerful conglomerate. The difference is that the RIAA is attempting to extort money to make up for its own mistakes, and the MPAA simply wants to squeeze the consumer for a little more. Both major character flaws to be sure, but I'm still not sold on the whole 'attack the consumer' marketing strategy.

Stealth Helicopter w/ Ejection Seat... Simply Not To Be

After two decades of development and 8 billion dollars spent, the Pentagon has decided to cancel the Comanche Stealth Helicopter Development Program. This project has been drug out for what seems like forever. The Comanche was never good enough for production. Several documentaries on the aircraft's develpment have pointed out the numerous blunders of the program including out-of-control rotors and endangered test pilots.

The subject of a series of video games, I always did wonder if that damn thing would ever make it into service. I was certain that I would hear more about its testing than its performance in combat. I guess the closest any servicemen are going to get to the Comanche's cockpit is on their home PC.

This is a smart move by the Pentagon to curb spending in a time of immense national dept (thank you Mr. Bush). I wish we could spend more military money domestically, but we're stuck with an administration that would prefer to see it spent in an effort to end the lives of our enemies, or at least the lives of those caught in the crossfire. Anyone who has, to any extent, followed the Comanche program, knew that this Helicopter wasn't going anywhere very fast... if at all. (Literally)

Hopefully some of the research will be salvaged through contributions to the (active) Apache program, which is another Boeing contract. Boeing's stock dropped today, along with United Technologies (co-contractor on Comanche). I await the fate of the Osprey (another radical military aircraft that has been in development FOREVER by Boeing).

*huff* *huff* *huff* ... What A Weekend

This was an interesting weekend to say the least. Friday and Saturday nights were both spent at the Main Street Pub, but it was Saturday afternoon that held the most peculiarity...

After a few cups of coffee in the morning, my dad brought in the mail and tossed a folded mailer in front of me. Enclose within was a check for $13.98 which was my portion of the RIAA settlement over a class action price-fixing case (see prior post for additional details). Check in hand, I typed out a post regarding the letter/check for this blog. While doing so, I heard a banging coming from the laundry dryer. I opened to inspect, and discovered my cell phone. Though looking "physically" pretty clean, the internals were shot. For those of you keeping track, this is the second cell phone I put through the laundry. The first was my old Nokia which after I dried out and installed a new battery, fired right up and worked fine until my contract was up for renewal, and I could secure a new phone. Nevertheless, this dead yet 'clean' cell phone problem needed to be dealt with...

I have insurance on my phone, since it is a semi-pricy camera model manufacuter by Sony Ericsson. I think it was voted "Phone-Of-The-Year" by someone in 2003. Phoning the insurance company was pretty simple and painless. The girl on the other end was knowledgable and swift with a nice sense of humor about the whole thing. She said my phone would be ready for pick-up at the Cingular location I had requested. Before leaving the house however, I decided to finish up my post regarding the RIAA check, and drop a line to SlashDot, thinking they might be interested...

...I got a new phone...Same as the old phone…

... I returned home and checked my TypePad site stats. This blog had over 5000 hits in less than 2 hours Saturday night. It turns out SlashDot had picked up my submitted article. I had been foolish enough to include links to my blog-article, and it wasn't long before hits were coming in to the tune of 20-25 a min. Though I would normally revel in the popularity, I seemed to have underestimated the appeal of my own article. All SlashDot submissions are reviewed before posting, and I thought it extremely unlikely that my submission would be selected. Before I knew it ... the main page of SlashDot has a big header titled "One Man's Check From the RIAA" submitted by c0rk.

SlashDot.jpg">

I should have foreseen this onslaught and taken steps prior to the SlashDot publication to reduce the size of this site, as not to exceed my bandwidth quota on TypePad. Needless to say I didn't... but luckily I discovered the slew of visitors soon enough to thwart additional attempt to link to this site. I republished the image and the post referenced, effectively breaking all the SlashDot links to C0rk.Blogs.com. This knocked hits down under 1000 an hour and eventually below 100. SlashDot readers would have to edit the URL manually to gain access to the site, and the re-named article. Luckily MOST weren't that dedicated. The next step was to distribute the bandwidth. I made all the images on the mainpage reference external image storage locations so that the bandwidth being used was not entirely TypePad's. By late Saturday night, hits were hovering between the upper double-digits and 100 per hour. By Sunday afternoon I was down to between 10-20 an hour, and it eventually came down to 5-15 per hour. My normal hit-rate is between 5-10 an hour, but the average has remained elevated because refferring address information shows that many SlashDot readers are deciding to repost corrected links in their own blogs and self run message boards/forums.

What about the bandwidth? Did you go over? ...

Contrary to the opinion of many SlashDot commenters, I did not exceed my bandwidth quota, nor have I incurred any monetary penalties. Though this did result in the highest month of bandwidth usage by my TypePad account since I purchased the service in August 2003, I have not yet exceeded my quota, nor does TypePad/SixAppart have a billing policy regarding bandwidth overuse. (Meaning: I'm not certain I would have been billed had I gone over because although there are quota's listed by TypePad, there is no documentation regarding how to purchase more, or how you will be billed in the event of an excess.) TypePad is a very recent (August 2003) startup of the SixApart Company known for developing the popular Blogging Software MovableType. The lack of a bandwidth policy is more than likely due to the infancy of TypePad, though hardly cause to disgrace SixApart. TypePad and SixApart are both remarkable products for which the company has received numerous accolades. I'm proud to have been such an early adopter (I'm invoice #58) of the service, and relieved that I was able to thwart the events of this weekend to avoid putting anyone in a difficult position.

Now that all of that is dealt with, all my regular readers can brace themselves for more standard reading in the coming days.