In all the hoopla of the credit downgrade, there was a birthday yesterday that we need to mention. ...no, not Lucille Ball, but I grew up partially on old I Love Lucy reruns, so hey, happy birthday, Mrs. Rotted-Out Corpse Unless You Were Cremated.
In fact, we're celebrating here the 20th birthday of the World Wide Web. You know, the 'www' that websites don't even bother making you type out anymore. Yesterday in 1991, the very first website was created. That website is here. The content of the site, back at the start, was to inform visitors how to make text, create their own sites, search the then very very tiny Web for information etc. Today, such information hard-wired into the psyches of the online population, the site tells the story of the Web's invention.
The Web's only 20 years old. For all the ages of things out there that make you feel old... the Web can't even legally drink yet.
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
Random News Generator- Latvia
Have you ever gotten a pop-up ad that launches into a virus scan you didn't ask for? Yeah, me too. I'll bet it found all sorts of nasty viruses and stuff in your computer, too, right? And then of course they'd offer some sort of antivirus software to fix all these problems you just found out about. Sometimes the ad is particularly persistent and reappears when you try to close the window.
In case you didn't already know, that pop-up ad is lying about all the viruses it found. The antivirus software that's being pushed on you? THAT'S a virus. It's known as scareware. It's a 21st-century version of those quack doctors that tell you you've got cancer, venereal disease, consumption, typhoid, dysentery, snakebite and broken leg all at the same time, and then they sell you a cure-all pill named after Dr. Somebody-or-Other that turns out to have mercury in it.
Due to the RNG landing on Latvia today, it is my pleasure to tell you that two international scareware rings that specialize in that kind of stunt have been rounded up by the FBI and US Department of Justice in a hunt called Operation Trident Tribunal. Trident Tribunal, aside from Latvia and the United States, has also involved Canada, Cyprus, France, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
One ring was a two-man operation consisting- allegedly- of 22-year-old Peteris Sahurovs and 23-year-old Marina Maslobojeva. If you regularly visit the site of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, you've run into them at some point. Sahurovs and Maslobojeva are accused of having created a fake ad agency and told the Star-Tribune they represented Best Western. Once accepted by the Star-Tribune, they swapped the original ads for Best Western out for ads that triggered scareware.
By doing this, Star-Tribune readers were allegedly bilked out of $2 million. If you have at some point purchased something called "Antivirus Soft" for $49.95 after visiting the Star-Tribune website, you've been conned.
The other ring, a much larger operation, raked in $72 million from some 960,000 victims who got taken for $129 each. Five different bank accounts were seized from this larger ring. Paradoxially, less info is available on this ring than on the two-man Latvian operation.
Granted, as long as the info is 'the scary antivirus ad people are going to go away now', you probably could care less how they go away.
In case you didn't already know, that pop-up ad is lying about all the viruses it found. The antivirus software that's being pushed on you? THAT'S a virus. It's known as scareware. It's a 21st-century version of those quack doctors that tell you you've got cancer, venereal disease, consumption, typhoid, dysentery, snakebite and broken leg all at the same time, and then they sell you a cure-all pill named after Dr. Somebody-or-Other that turns out to have mercury in it.
Due to the RNG landing on Latvia today, it is my pleasure to tell you that two international scareware rings that specialize in that kind of stunt have been rounded up by the FBI and US Department of Justice in a hunt called Operation Trident Tribunal. Trident Tribunal, aside from Latvia and the United States, has also involved Canada, Cyprus, France, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
One ring was a two-man operation consisting- allegedly- of 22-year-old Peteris Sahurovs and 23-year-old Marina Maslobojeva. If you regularly visit the site of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, you've run into them at some point. Sahurovs and Maslobojeva are accused of having created a fake ad agency and told the Star-Tribune they represented Best Western. Once accepted by the Star-Tribune, they swapped the original ads for Best Western out for ads that triggered scareware.
By doing this, Star-Tribune readers were allegedly bilked out of $2 million. If you have at some point purchased something called "Antivirus Soft" for $49.95 after visiting the Star-Tribune website, you've been conned.
The other ring, a much larger operation, raked in $72 million from some 960,000 victims who got taken for $129 each. Five different bank accounts were seized from this larger ring. Paradoxially, less info is available on this ring than on the two-man Latvian operation.
Granted, as long as the info is 'the scary antivirus ad people are going to go away now', you probably could care less how they go away.
Monday, June 20, 2011
The 'Shrek Virus'
I really usually don't just post a link and be off, but... okay. There's this dating site called 'Beautiful People' that only allows beautiful people to be members.
Someone went and unleashed something called the 'Shrek Virus' that essentially allowed ugly people to storm the gates.
The article just got more utterly messed up from there. I don't comment on it mainly because of the sheer amount of dumbstruck.
Someone went and unleashed something called the 'Shrek Virus' that essentially allowed ugly people to storm the gates.
The article just got more utterly messed up from there. I don't comment on it mainly because of the sheer amount of dumbstruck.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Updates, Updates, Three Bags Full
I've been getting a little overboard with my writing hours lately and it caused me to bonk on Sunday at the job that actually pays me money after I forgot to eat lunch. This explains the off day I took yesterday.
Let's see if I can avoid being so monumentally stupid in the future.
Today, there's a little bit of updating we need to do. First, Duke Nukem Forever ships today. A delay (what else?) forced it to today from the May 3 date reported here back in January. Review copies are in, scores have been given.
How is it? Bad. Really bad. Screamingly bad. Intestine-twistingly bad. Maybe-it-would-have-been-better-to-remain-a-joke bad.
Sorry, fellow Penny Arcader slash000. (That pre-order is dated 2001, just in case the text is too small for you.)
Secondly, a second sustained protest has emerged in Madison; I attended the earlier one back in February. This is a little tent village set up across the street from Capitol Square, albeit a somewhat disorganized one, as Russ Feingold found out when he dropped by for a visit on Sunday. The AV Club- the Onion's non-satire branch with local coverage of Madison, Milwaukee, Chicago, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Denver/Boulder, Austin and Philadelphia- has further current updates in the linked article on Wisconsin's ongoing partisan battle to the death. (Battle does not actually entail death.) Things are moving rather quickly now as the recall election ballots get scheduled and confirm their various challengers, and also as Republicans gear up to pass the budget that started the whole mess in the first place for a second time; the first attempt has been mired in a legal battle over the procedure used. This second run is sounding the alarm enough on the Democratic side that we may have a much larger protest once again.
Finally, back on March 5, I passed along Microsoft's request for you to stop using it. Microsoft's goal is to get worldwide IE6 usage down below 1% so providers can save themselves the hassle of supporting it.
As of then, worldwide usage was 12%. Norway and Finland were under the 1% threshold. As of now, the percentage is 10.9% still on IE6, with Sweden and Denmark now also under 1%. About half of the people still using it are from China, which still shows 33.9% usage of IE6. South Korea shows 22.3% usage, Vietnam 11.6%, India 11.5%, and Taiwan at 8.6% rounds out the bottom 5. The United States currently sits at 2.3%, with Canada and the UK both at 2.7%.
Also, sometime in the past month, someone rolled into here using Netscape. What's up with that?
Let's see if I can avoid being so monumentally stupid in the future.
Today, there's a little bit of updating we need to do. First, Duke Nukem Forever ships today. A delay (what else?) forced it to today from the May 3 date reported here back in January. Review copies are in, scores have been given.
How is it? Bad. Really bad. Screamingly bad. Intestine-twistingly bad. Maybe-it-would-have-been-better-to-remain-a-joke bad.
Sorry, fellow Penny Arcader slash000. (That pre-order is dated 2001, just in case the text is too small for you.)
Secondly, a second sustained protest has emerged in Madison; I attended the earlier one back in February. This is a little tent village set up across the street from Capitol Square, albeit a somewhat disorganized one, as Russ Feingold found out when he dropped by for a visit on Sunday. The AV Club- the Onion's non-satire branch with local coverage of Madison, Milwaukee, Chicago, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Denver/Boulder, Austin and Philadelphia- has further current updates in the linked article on Wisconsin's ongoing partisan battle to the death. (Battle does not actually entail death.) Things are moving rather quickly now as the recall election ballots get scheduled and confirm their various challengers, and also as Republicans gear up to pass the budget that started the whole mess in the first place for a second time; the first attempt has been mired in a legal battle over the procedure used. This second run is sounding the alarm enough on the Democratic side that we may have a much larger protest once again.
Finally, back on March 5, I passed along Microsoft's request for you to stop using it. Microsoft's goal is to get worldwide IE6 usage down below 1% so providers can save themselves the hassle of supporting it.
As of then, worldwide usage was 12%. Norway and Finland were under the 1% threshold. As of now, the percentage is 10.9% still on IE6, with Sweden and Denmark now also under 1%. About half of the people still using it are from China, which still shows 33.9% usage of IE6. South Korea shows 22.3% usage, Vietnam 11.6%, India 11.5%, and Taiwan at 8.6% rounds out the bottom 5. The United States currently sits at 2.3%, with Canada and the UK both at 2.7%.
Also, sometime in the past month, someone rolled into here using Netscape. What's up with that?
Friday, June 3, 2011
RNG Week- Turkey
TODAY: Turkey
SATURDAY: Congo-Brazzaville
Protesters in 30 cities throughout Turkey marched through the streets in mid-May in opposition to a proposed law that would censor Internet sites displaying pornography, violent content or bomb-making tutorials. The proposed law would require every Internet user to sign up for one of four filters: a 'standard' filter, a 'family' filter, a 'children's' filter, a 'domestic' filter (this last one blocks all non-Turkish websites).
I was going to go on, but then realized you are necessarily an Internet user, and thus, you have probably filled in most of the rest yourself. Deutsche Welle has by far the best write-up on the details. Of course, you know how the Internet works. (You are not Turkish. Turkey blocked Blogger in March over the unauthorized distribution of soccer games. Which of course means I'm now free to call them anything I want and imply I have slept with all of their mothers and they can't do anything about it. But that would be wrong.)
The major problem in Turkey is that a lot of them don't know how the Internet works. We talked here last March about how in the 1995, Turkey was pulling a 70% literacy rate and as a result had problems with newspapers. The literacy rate now is 88.7%. While a big improvement, that's still only good for a rank of 104th worldwide. 70% now is the realm of sub-Saharan Africa.
When basic literacy is out of reach for one out of every eight Turks, Internet literacy is a tough, tough ask. When those in charge are ignorant of the Internet, they will do self-destructive things without realizing it. When average users are ignorant, they will go along with them.
And when those in charge actually do know how the Internet works, and the public at large does not, that opens up the potential for abuse.
SATURDAY: Congo-Brazzaville
Protesters in 30 cities throughout Turkey marched through the streets in mid-May in opposition to a proposed law that would censor Internet sites displaying pornography, violent content or bomb-making tutorials. The proposed law would require every Internet user to sign up for one of four filters: a 'standard' filter, a 'family' filter, a 'children's' filter, a 'domestic' filter (this last one blocks all non-Turkish websites).
I was going to go on, but then realized you are necessarily an Internet user, and thus, you have probably filled in most of the rest yourself. Deutsche Welle has by far the best write-up on the details. Of course, you know how the Internet works. (You are not Turkish. Turkey blocked Blogger in March over the unauthorized distribution of soccer games. Which of course means I'm now free to call them anything I want and imply I have slept with all of their mothers and they can't do anything about it. But that would be wrong.)
The major problem in Turkey is that a lot of them don't know how the Internet works. We talked here last March about how in the 1995, Turkey was pulling a 70% literacy rate and as a result had problems with newspapers. The literacy rate now is 88.7%. While a big improvement, that's still only good for a rank of 104th worldwide. 70% now is the realm of sub-Saharan Africa.
When basic literacy is out of reach for one out of every eight Turks, Internet literacy is a tough, tough ask. When those in charge are ignorant of the Internet, they will do self-destructive things without realizing it. When average users are ignorant, they will go along with them.
And when those in charge actually do know how the Internet works, and the public at large does not, that opens up the potential for abuse.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
In Bidding War, There Are No Winners
There are some ads I've been seeing lately that jump out at me. Maybe you've seen them; you very might well have seen at least one of them at some point because Mike and Mike of ESPN are in one of them. They follow a central concept, known as penny auction sites.
Actually, let's run those ads first and get you familiar with them...
The description of the second ad precedes the driving point here. Listen up, because we're going to break down just exactly how these two ads constitute a stupid tax. We'll take them as a group, because the sites work on the same principle, as do a multitude of others.
First and foremost, note the "small fee" you pay to make a bid, and SkoreIt offering "$10.00 in free bids".
Let us repeat that: you are paying to make a bid. Not paying for the item. Paying for the bid to attempt to gain the item that you may or may not actually win. That's on top of whatever it is you're paying for the item itself, if you win it, which you might not. If you get into a bidding war with a guy and bid 28 times in a single auction, you're paying for 28 bids, with no guarantee of winning the item.
On eBay, bids are free. Always have been.
Also, please take note of the price going up by "as little as" one penny. The addition of "as little as" means it can go up by more. SkoreIt will increase its price by up to 8 cents. The actual price of the item can still be kept low. It doesn't have to go up by large amounts.
Why doesn't it have to go up by more? Because the sites are making their money off of the bid fees. Every bid placed generates one bid fee that is paid no matter what. The goal of the site, therefore, is to generate as many bids as possible. If the auction price gets too high, people stop bidding. If the auction price is low, people keep bidding. They won't internalize the price of the bid, only the price of the item itself. How often do you internalize a sales tax- that is to say, how often do you take the sales tax into account prior to the moment of purchase? That's a key principle at play here.
They also keep bidding if the increment is low. Again, the bid fee is not internalized, only the It's Only One Penny More mentality that you're supposed to have.
What's the bid fee? Quibids tells you up front when you type its name into Google: 60 cents per bid. SkoreIt advertises the same. So in a bidding war for an item in which you place 35 bids because the price went up by Only A Penny, you've in fact paid $21 and stand a chance of getting nothing in return. After all, this is an auction. Not everybody can win. If you do win, you've paid $21 plus the price of the item itself.
Doesn't sound so good now, does it?
Also consider the odds of your actually winning. If you've ever bid on eBay, you know full well the horror stories of getting sniped at the last second. You probably have them yourself. You're frustrated enough when the bids are free. Imagine your reaction when you've paid for all those bids.
And on penny auction sites, sniping is common. In fact, sniping is encouraged, with invitations to snipe repeatedly on the same item. Every bid placed adds a small amount of time to the clock on a given auction, sometimes with a forced minimum the clock resets to if a bid is placed with less than that amount of time left. A clock that reads 20 seconds left is essentially meaningless. The auction can theoretically go on eternally, as long as bids continue to be placed.
And they will continue to be placed for a while. Brian Kongszik of the Florida Council for Compulsive Gambling told USA Today back in February that he had taken calls from people seeking help because penny auctions had sucked them in too deeply.
And, of course, even if you win- not when, but if- you must take into account not only what you paid for the item, but what you paid for all the items you didn't win.
Stick with eBay, and that's not something you have to worry about.
Actually, let's run those ads first and get you familiar with them...
The description of the second ad precedes the driving point here. Listen up, because we're going to break down just exactly how these two ads constitute a stupid tax. We'll take them as a group, because the sites work on the same principle, as do a multitude of others.
First and foremost, note the "small fee" you pay to make a bid, and SkoreIt offering "$10.00 in free bids".
Let us repeat that: you are paying to make a bid. Not paying for the item. Paying for the bid to attempt to gain the item that you may or may not actually win. That's on top of whatever it is you're paying for the item itself, if you win it, which you might not. If you get into a bidding war with a guy and bid 28 times in a single auction, you're paying for 28 bids, with no guarantee of winning the item.
On eBay, bids are free. Always have been.
Also, please take note of the price going up by "as little as" one penny. The addition of "as little as" means it can go up by more. SkoreIt will increase its price by up to 8 cents. The actual price of the item can still be kept low. It doesn't have to go up by large amounts.
Why doesn't it have to go up by more? Because the sites are making their money off of the bid fees. Every bid placed generates one bid fee that is paid no matter what. The goal of the site, therefore, is to generate as many bids as possible. If the auction price gets too high, people stop bidding. If the auction price is low, people keep bidding. They won't internalize the price of the bid, only the price of the item itself. How often do you internalize a sales tax- that is to say, how often do you take the sales tax into account prior to the moment of purchase? That's a key principle at play here.
They also keep bidding if the increment is low. Again, the bid fee is not internalized, only the It's Only One Penny More mentality that you're supposed to have.
What's the bid fee? Quibids tells you up front when you type its name into Google: 60 cents per bid. SkoreIt advertises the same. So in a bidding war for an item in which you place 35 bids because the price went up by Only A Penny, you've in fact paid $21 and stand a chance of getting nothing in return. After all, this is an auction. Not everybody can win. If you do win, you've paid $21 plus the price of the item itself.
Doesn't sound so good now, does it?
Also consider the odds of your actually winning. If you've ever bid on eBay, you know full well the horror stories of getting sniped at the last second. You probably have them yourself. You're frustrated enough when the bids are free. Imagine your reaction when you've paid for all those bids.
And on penny auction sites, sniping is common. In fact, sniping is encouraged, with invitations to snipe repeatedly on the same item. Every bid placed adds a small amount of time to the clock on a given auction, sometimes with a forced minimum the clock resets to if a bid is placed with less than that amount of time left. A clock that reads 20 seconds left is essentially meaningless. The auction can theoretically go on eternally, as long as bids continue to be placed.
And they will continue to be placed for a while. Brian Kongszik of the Florida Council for Compulsive Gambling told USA Today back in February that he had taken calls from people seeking help because penny auctions had sucked them in too deeply.
And, of course, even if you win- not when, but if- you must take into account not only what you paid for the item, but what you paid for all the items you didn't win.
Stick with eBay, and that's not something you have to worry about.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
It's Okay, Sir; I'm From The Internet
Are you any good at games with guns? Okay, great. Now how are you at the non-shooting parts of those games? The tactical aspects?
Also, how good are you at tweeting? That's kind of key.
If you're good at all of that, the Office of Naval Research has a favor to ask: would you be willing to help with their ongoing Somali piracy problem.
Meet MMOWGLI: Massive Multiplayer Online WarGame Leveraging the Internet. What the Navy is looking for is basically brainstorming. They want you to answer two things: what new resources could improve matters on the Navy's end, and what new risks could pop up that make things tougher or change the landscape. From there, it's your basic peer-voting contest.
Aside from a brainstorming session, the Navy is looking to see whether MMOWGLI is actually going to generate anything usable or whether it'll just be a bunch of people asking if the Navy will get ninjas to fight the pirates and asking if the Navy can has cheezburger. Probably in an effort to weed out the lolcats, they're limiting the participant pool to 1,000 players. If it works out, the concept could easily be applied to other problems.
Considering that you have to answer each question in relation to solving a very complicated problem in the space of a tweet, I'm betting the usefulness may be limited a bit. (That's why I use Twitter on the order of once every couple months: if I have a thought, it's almost certainly going to come in over 140 characters.) But if you think you can make hay of it, head over, register and see if you get in.
Also, how good are you at tweeting? That's kind of key.
If you're good at all of that, the Office of Naval Research has a favor to ask: would you be willing to help with their ongoing Somali piracy problem.
Meet MMOWGLI: Massive Multiplayer Online WarGame Leveraging the Internet. What the Navy is looking for is basically brainstorming. They want you to answer two things: what new resources could improve matters on the Navy's end, and what new risks could pop up that make things tougher or change the landscape. From there, it's your basic peer-voting contest.
Aside from a brainstorming session, the Navy is looking to see whether MMOWGLI is actually going to generate anything usable or whether it'll just be a bunch of people asking if the Navy will get ninjas to fight the pirates and asking if the Navy can has cheezburger. Probably in an effort to weed out the lolcats, they're limiting the participant pool to 1,000 players. If it works out, the concept could easily be applied to other problems.
Considering that you have to answer each question in relation to solving a very complicated problem in the space of a tweet, I'm betting the usefulness may be limited a bit. (That's why I use Twitter on the order of once every couple months: if I have a thought, it's almost certainly going to come in over 140 characters.) But if you think you can make hay of it, head over, register and see if you get in.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Are You Using Friendster?
I'll wait for you to stop laughing.
...oh, come on, it wasn't that funny.
Fine, let's rephrase it. Have you ever used Friendster at some point? If you have, you may want to head on over and clean out anything in your account you may have forgotten you had, because on May 31, they're going to delete it all so they can relaunch as a games site aimed at Asians. They were bought in 2009 by a Malaysian digital payment company called Money Online. Your account will still be there, but your data won't.
Why Asians? Because Friendster, against all odds, is still popular in Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines.
...what? No, they didn't "ban Facebook".
Anyway. Friendster's set up an exporting app that will help get your data off of Friendster and placed somewhere else. This is of course assuming that you have data at Friendster that you don't have somewhere else already. I, of course, being what the kids today refer to as a "hep cat", have already done so by virtue of never having an account there in the first place.
...oh, come on, it wasn't that funny.
Fine, let's rephrase it. Have you ever used Friendster at some point? If you have, you may want to head on over and clean out anything in your account you may have forgotten you had, because on May 31, they're going to delete it all so they can relaunch as a games site aimed at Asians. They were bought in 2009 by a Malaysian digital payment company called Money Online. Your account will still be there, but your data won't.
Why Asians? Because Friendster, against all odds, is still popular in Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines.
...what? No, they didn't "ban Facebook".
Anyway. Friendster's set up an exporting app that will help get your data off of Friendster and placed somewhere else. This is of course assuming that you have data at Friendster that you don't have somewhere else already. I, of course, being what the kids today refer to as a "hep cat", have already done so by virtue of never having an account there in the first place.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Home Page
It's a TED talk today. Specifically, say hello to Ethan Zuckerman.
How global do you think the Internet truly is? Despite the ability of the Web to connect you to what's going on in the rest of the world, how often do you actually do so?
Because Ethan's got a nasty surprise for you.
How global do you think the Internet truly is? Despite the ability of the Web to connect you to what's going on in the rest of the world, how often do you actually do so?
Because Ethan's got a nasty surprise for you.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
RAAAAAIIIIIIINNNNNNN!
Voting closes tomorrow on the 2011 Time 100 poll. Mercifully. Time intends for you to, given a list of notable people from the past year, help decide who is influential and who is not. The winner, the person who is voted most influential (by way of 'influential' votes minus 'not influential' votes), gets a place in the Time 100.
That's the intent. Being a poll on the Internet, it has devolved into a gigantic popularity contest. The defending champion is Korean pop singer Rain, who it cannot possibly be argued has been influential beyond influencing Korean girls to yell EEEEEEEEEEEEEE, and given the current standings, he is winning again going away. In a distant second is Jay Chou, AKA Kato from The Green Hornet, and far behind Chou in third: Susan Boyle.
The rest of the top 25, as it reads when I get there:
4- Cheng Yen, head of the Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation
5- Beyonce
6- Chris Colfer, aka Kurt from Glee
7- Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great
8- Bradley Manning, the soldier being held for leaking to Wikileaks
9- Lady Gaga
10- Julian Assange
11- Ron Paul
12- Glenn Beck
13- Fukushima power plant workers
14- Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisian fruit-cart owner who set himself on fire and in the process kicked off all the Arab protests and wars and revolutions
15- Wisconsin's 'Fab 14' state senators (these would be the Democrats who went to Illinois)
16- Han Han, a Chinese writer/blogger who gets away with criticizing the government because he is also a celebrity and racecar driver
17- Rihanna
18- Dan Savage and Terry Miller, founders of the It Gets Better Project
19- Tawakul Karman, head of the Yemeni group Women Journalists Without Chains
20- Mohamed Elbaradei, part of the Egyptian opposition to Hosni Mubarak
21- Alan Mulally, CEO of Ford
22- Gabrielle Giffords
23- Wael Ghonim, who kicked off the Facebook movement to bring about Egyptian revolution
24- Mark Zuckerberg
25- Mahinda Rajapaksa, president of Sri Lanka
Exhibit B that the poll has descended into farce: the middle of the pack. Michelle Obama, the First Lady to Barack, is 26th. Barack himself, the president of the United States, is 46th. Aung Sun Suu Kyi (40th) comes in six spots back of Betty White (34th). Vladimir Putin (67th) is 15 spots behind Conan O'Brien (52nd). Benjamin Netanyahu (86th) is two spots back of Jamie Oliver, aka the Naked Chef (84th). David Cameron (110th), John Boehner (112th), Joe Biden (109th) and Dmitri Medvedev (105th) are all losing to Katy Perry (100th). Justin Bieber (137th) is four spots up on Kathleen Sebelius (141st) and 17 spots up on Hamid Karzai (154th). Aaron Rodgers (176th) is two spots ahead of the Nobel Peace Laureate, Liu Xiaobo (178th).
Exhibit C: the other end of the list; the bottom. Supposedly, the 'least influential'. The bottom 25 (of which Xiaobo only misses by one spot):
179- Ai Weiwei (Chinese artist and activist; detained by Chinese authorities earlier this year)
180- Jenna Lyons, executive creative director of J.Crew; Michelle Obama wears a lot of their stuff
181- Bruno Mars (aka the guy who would catch a grenade, throw his head on a blade, jump in front of a train, take a bullet straight through his brain for you, but is miffed that you wouldn't do the same)
182- Bob Dudley, CEO of BP
183- Dilma Rousseff, president of Brazil
184- Sarah Palin
185- Grant Achatz (American chef doing molecular gastronomy, like pretty much everyone else at that level of cooking after they heard about Ferran Adria, who now can't go out for a simple cheeseburger without getting three-hour presentations of pizza foam or malted scallops or other insane things he's done himself, better)
186- Michael Vick
187- Annette Bening (from The Kids Are All Right)
188- Russell Brand
189- Aziz Ansari (from Parks and Recreation)
190- Silvio Berlusconi
191- Willow Smith (aka 'I WHIP MY HAIR BACK AND FORTH I WHIP MY HAIR BACK AND FORTH I WHIP MY HAIR BACK AND FORTH I WHIP MY HAIR BACK AND FORTH')
192- Newt Gingrich
193- Lady Antebellum
194- Rooney Mara (The Social Network, the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo)
195- Gwyneth Paltrow
196- Scott Walker
197- Zach Galifianakis
198- Chelsea Handler
199- Kim Kardashian
200- Charlie Sheen
201- Snooki
202- Amy Chua, the Tiger Mom
203 (last by miles and miles and miles)- Kanye West
Thankfully, the very bottom is mostly populated with annoying celebrities. Where they should be, assuming they even belong in the poll at all. But then you've got Scott Walker and Sarah Palin in there. And two different heads of state. You may hate them. You may want them out of the political arena. But to say they're not influential? You might make a case for Newt Gingrich, who has had a problem getting traction in Republican primary polls, but Sarah Palin not influential? Come on now.
It's not like Time didn't know this would happen. Back in 1998, they opened up their Man (changed the next year to Person) of the Year vote to the public. That is intended to be the person who had the most influence on the year, for better or worse. (This is the standard response every time someone brings up the fact that Hitler won it once, even though Time has been known to shy away from people who would draw a similar reaction in the United States.) The public decided that this should be Mick Foley, professional wrestler and, that year, author of the book Have A Nice Day. Time responded by removing him from consideration. The title eventually went to Bill Clinton and Kenneth Starr.
Now, over a decade later, they've just decided to go with it. They've given up. If people want to say Rain is influential and make Stephen Colbert shake his fist screaming RAAAAAAAAIIIIIIINNNNN, then that's what Time is now prepared to do.
And if you take out the people who clearly have no business being 'most influential', leaving it just to the newsmakers, that creates another set of problems, as with votes come campaigns for those votes. Not debates. Campaigns. That's why you see the likes of Palin, Walker and Berlusconi at the bottom. Are they influential? Do they have an impact? Who cares? Suck it, Walker!
The best solution is simple: cancel the vote and put the decision back in the hands of the Time staff. If you want the job of deciding who's influential done right, you've got to do it yourself.
That's the intent. Being a poll on the Internet, it has devolved into a gigantic popularity contest. The defending champion is Korean pop singer Rain, who it cannot possibly be argued has been influential beyond influencing Korean girls to yell EEEEEEEEEEEEEE, and given the current standings, he is winning again going away. In a distant second is Jay Chou, AKA Kato from The Green Hornet, and far behind Chou in third: Susan Boyle.
The rest of the top 25, as it reads when I get there:
4- Cheng Yen, head of the Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation
5- Beyonce
6- Chris Colfer, aka Kurt from Glee
7- Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great
8- Bradley Manning, the soldier being held for leaking to Wikileaks
9- Lady Gaga
10- Julian Assange
11- Ron Paul
12- Glenn Beck
13- Fukushima power plant workers
14- Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisian fruit-cart owner who set himself on fire and in the process kicked off all the Arab protests and wars and revolutions
15- Wisconsin's 'Fab 14' state senators (these would be the Democrats who went to Illinois)
16- Han Han, a Chinese writer/blogger who gets away with criticizing the government because he is also a celebrity and racecar driver
17- Rihanna
18- Dan Savage and Terry Miller, founders of the It Gets Better Project
19- Tawakul Karman, head of the Yemeni group Women Journalists Without Chains
20- Mohamed Elbaradei, part of the Egyptian opposition to Hosni Mubarak
21- Alan Mulally, CEO of Ford
22- Gabrielle Giffords
23- Wael Ghonim, who kicked off the Facebook movement to bring about Egyptian revolution
24- Mark Zuckerberg
25- Mahinda Rajapaksa, president of Sri Lanka
Exhibit B that the poll has descended into farce: the middle of the pack. Michelle Obama, the First Lady to Barack, is 26th. Barack himself, the president of the United States, is 46th. Aung Sun Suu Kyi (40th) comes in six spots back of Betty White (34th). Vladimir Putin (67th) is 15 spots behind Conan O'Brien (52nd). Benjamin Netanyahu (86th) is two spots back of Jamie Oliver, aka the Naked Chef (84th). David Cameron (110th), John Boehner (112th), Joe Biden (109th) and Dmitri Medvedev (105th) are all losing to Katy Perry (100th). Justin Bieber (137th) is four spots up on Kathleen Sebelius (141st) and 17 spots up on Hamid Karzai (154th). Aaron Rodgers (176th) is two spots ahead of the Nobel Peace Laureate, Liu Xiaobo (178th).
Exhibit C: the other end of the list; the bottom. Supposedly, the 'least influential'. The bottom 25 (of which Xiaobo only misses by one spot):
179- Ai Weiwei (Chinese artist and activist; detained by Chinese authorities earlier this year)
180- Jenna Lyons, executive creative director of J.Crew; Michelle Obama wears a lot of their stuff
181- Bruno Mars (aka the guy who would catch a grenade, throw his head on a blade, jump in front of a train, take a bullet straight through his brain for you, but is miffed that you wouldn't do the same)
182- Bob Dudley, CEO of BP
183- Dilma Rousseff, president of Brazil
184- Sarah Palin
185- Grant Achatz (American chef doing molecular gastronomy, like pretty much everyone else at that level of cooking after they heard about Ferran Adria, who now can't go out for a simple cheeseburger without getting three-hour presentations of pizza foam or malted scallops or other insane things he's done himself, better)
186- Michael Vick
187- Annette Bening (from The Kids Are All Right)
188- Russell Brand
189- Aziz Ansari (from Parks and Recreation)
190- Silvio Berlusconi
191- Willow Smith (aka 'I WHIP MY HAIR BACK AND FORTH I WHIP MY HAIR BACK AND FORTH I WHIP MY HAIR BACK AND FORTH I WHIP MY HAIR BACK AND FORTH')
192- Newt Gingrich
193- Lady Antebellum
194- Rooney Mara (The Social Network, the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo)
195- Gwyneth Paltrow
196- Scott Walker
197- Zach Galifianakis
198- Chelsea Handler
199- Kim Kardashian
200- Charlie Sheen
201- Snooki
202- Amy Chua, the Tiger Mom
203 (last by miles and miles and miles)- Kanye West
Thankfully, the very bottom is mostly populated with annoying celebrities. Where they should be, assuming they even belong in the poll at all. But then you've got Scott Walker and Sarah Palin in there. And two different heads of state. You may hate them. You may want them out of the political arena. But to say they're not influential? You might make a case for Newt Gingrich, who has had a problem getting traction in Republican primary polls, but Sarah Palin not influential? Come on now.
It's not like Time didn't know this would happen. Back in 1998, they opened up their Man (changed the next year to Person) of the Year vote to the public. That is intended to be the person who had the most influence on the year, for better or worse. (This is the standard response every time someone brings up the fact that Hitler won it once, even though Time has been known to shy away from people who would draw a similar reaction in the United States.) The public decided that this should be Mick Foley, professional wrestler and, that year, author of the book Have A Nice Day. Time responded by removing him from consideration. The title eventually went to Bill Clinton and Kenneth Starr.
Now, over a decade later, they've just decided to go with it. They've given up. If people want to say Rain is influential and make Stephen Colbert shake his fist screaming RAAAAAAAAIIIIIIINNNNN, then that's what Time is now prepared to do.
And if you take out the people who clearly have no business being 'most influential', leaving it just to the newsmakers, that creates another set of problems, as with votes come campaigns for those votes. Not debates. Campaigns. That's why you see the likes of Palin, Walker and Berlusconi at the bottom. Are they influential? Do they have an impact? Who cares? Suck it, Walker!
The best solution is simple: cancel the vote and put the decision back in the hands of the Time staff. If you want the job of deciding who's influential done right, you've got to do it yourself.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
News of Breaking Late Cheesecake Importance World
News aggregators are one of my favorite tools for finding things out. As I've said before, even though you don't see the widest variety of stories on cable news, there's plenty to be known, and whatever you want to know about, someone somewhere has likely reported on it recently.
That's the thing, though. Someone went out and wrote the article. It might be a lazily-done thing, but someone thought about the words they were putting down and actively said 'okay, this is good enough for me to submit'.
Someone, however, somewhere, one day got the idea that this was too much work. They would prefer to just have the computer write the story for them. This is how the scourge of automated news has come to be. Automated news writes stories according to an algorithm of some sort based on the writings of others. These writings are then combined, mashed up, and then presented as a unique piece.
Luckily for us, they do an awful job of it. Let's take this site here, which titles itself "Latest Update Headline News".
I'll use, just as an example, something totally innocuous and noncontroversial, a weird-news story: namely, that of a woman stripping naked on a flight from Chicago to New York. Let's start by showing how an actual human being working for the Associated Press- and reported in USA Today- reports on this:
And now to the automated version of events from "Latest Update Headline News", which for you may read differently from this, as the exact text may change over time:
Any questions?
Well, yes, but I meant about the quality of the articles. One was coherently written, the other is Babelfish News.
Why? Why would someone do this? There are two possible reasons, far as I can figure:
1: Someone is just that lazy. In which case, find another line of work. That's just plain awful.
2: Ad revenue. Someone doesn't even care if they have a coherent article. They just want someone to mistake it for one long enough to get them in front of some ads, which if clicked make that someone money.
It's not likely you'll come across these places very often- they're a drop in the bucket. But it's really troubling that they exist at all. Let's try and make sure they stay a drop in the bucket. Don't click their ads, and really, try not to click their links if you can pick them out.
That's the thing, though. Someone went out and wrote the article. It might be a lazily-done thing, but someone thought about the words they were putting down and actively said 'okay, this is good enough for me to submit'.
Someone, however, somewhere, one day got the idea that this was too much work. They would prefer to just have the computer write the story for them. This is how the scourge of automated news has come to be. Automated news writes stories according to an algorithm of some sort based on the writings of others. These writings are then combined, mashed up, and then presented as a unique piece.
Luckily for us, they do an awful job of it. Let's take this site here, which titles itself "Latest Update Headline News".
I'll use, just as an example, something totally innocuous and noncontroversial, a weird-news story: namely, that of a woman stripping naked on a flight from Chicago to New York. Let's start by showing how an actual human being working for the Associated Press- and reported in USA Today- reports on this:
Police have removed an emotionally disturbed passenger who stripped naked on a flight between Chicago and New York.
The incident happened Saturday night as Delta Flight 6562 began its descent into Kennedy Airport.
A Newsday news manager who was on the flight said flight attendants tried to cover the woman with a blanket while she yelled "No! No! No!"
The Newsday manager, David Holland, said that when the plane landed, other passengers got off before police removed the woman.
A spokeswoman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said the woman was taken to Jamaica Hospital Medical Center.
The woman's name was not released. She is not expected to be criminally charged.
And now to the automated version of events from "Latest Update Headline News", which for you may read differently from this, as the exact text may change over time:
Woman Strips Naked On JFK-Bound Flight: Police hаνе private аn emotionally uneasy newcomer whο nude exposed οn the moody between Chicago аnd Nеw York. Thе situation happened Saturday night аѕ Delta Flight 6562 ѕtаrtеd іtѕ skirmish іntο Kennedy Airport. Reports ѕаіd thаt thе Flight attendent hаѕ attempted tο cover thе women bυt ѕhе denied tο bе lonesome up. ѕhе announced NO NO NO!.
Thе reason οf hеr shameful try hаѕ nοt bееn tοld nοr thе name οf thе women revealed. Thе Newsday manager, David Holland, ѕаіd thаt whеn thе craft landed, οthеr passengers gοt οff prior to military private thе woman. Later οn, thе lady wаѕ taken tο Jamaica Hospital Medical Center.
Any questions?
Well, yes, but I meant about the quality of the articles. One was coherently written, the other is Babelfish News.
Why? Why would someone do this? There are two possible reasons, far as I can figure:
1: Someone is just that lazy. In which case, find another line of work. That's just plain awful.
2: Ad revenue. Someone doesn't even care if they have a coherent article. They just want someone to mistake it for one long enough to get them in front of some ads, which if clicked make that someone money.
It's not likely you'll come across these places very often- they're a drop in the bucket. But it's really troubling that they exist at all. Let's try and make sure they stay a drop in the bucket. Don't click their ads, and really, try not to click their links if you can pick them out.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
In Other Election News...
...we have a Russian performance artist named Oleg Mavromatti, currently based in Bulgaria, who has recieved some death threats accusing him of inciting religious hatred in a previous piece where he had himself crucified.
He has responded by creating a new piece, which he calls Ally/Foe, in which he is putting himself in an electric chair and putting it to an online vote on whether he lives or dies.
Clearly, this guy is unaware of the general demeanor of the Internet, in which normal people end up acting like jerks for no good reason. There's even a theory for it.
As I post this, the vote is not yet active. However, if anyone would like to head over and save him from himself, that would be greatly appreciated. The linked article supplies further information on just what's going on. He'll be in the chair for a week- and probably a whole lot longer than that if things go pear-shaped for him- and so you'll have that long to save his hide. The website is available in English, as well as Russian and Bulgarian. I want to stress here: this is a real person who, if you vote against him, has rigged it so he will really die. If you head over and then vote against him, that's on you.
He has responded by creating a new piece, which he calls Ally/Foe, in which he is putting himself in an electric chair and putting it to an online vote on whether he lives or dies.
Clearly, this guy is unaware of the general demeanor of the Internet, in which normal people end up acting like jerks for no good reason. There's even a theory for it.
As I post this, the vote is not yet active. However, if anyone would like to head over and save him from himself, that would be greatly appreciated. The linked article supplies further information on just what's going on. He'll be in the chair for a week- and probably a whole lot longer than that if things go pear-shaped for him- and so you'll have that long to save his hide. The website is available in English, as well as Russian and Bulgarian. I want to stress here: this is a real person who, if you vote against him, has rigged it so he will really die. If you head over and then vote against him, that's on you.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Rule #1 Of The Internet
Today, the RIAA and MPAA learn a harsh, merciless lesson.
Never.
Ever.
EVER.
Piss off 4chan.
4chan does not give a damn about things like 'ethics' or 'laws' or 'privacy' or anything that might stop a normal person from doing awful things to you. They're not going to kill you or anything violent like that (although they will make threats), but they will bombard you with embarrasing things through the mail, they will DDOS your website (as has happened here), they will hack, they will post porn all over the place, all in the name of what they figure to be vigilante justice. Or laughs. Sometimes they do crazy things for laughs. It's sometimes hard to tell.
You remember when someone hacked into Sarah Palin's Yahoo Mail account during the 2008 election? That was 4chan.
You remember when seven different NFL stadiums had to deal with threats of dirty bombs in October 2006? That was 4chan.
You know Rick Astley? The whole rickrolling thing? That was 4chan.
You know those 'trending' topics on Yahoo? If you see something really strange for no good reason, like a swastika, or 'fried chicken', there's a decent chance it's 4chan.
Of course, to be fair, there have been several occasions over the years of some guy threatening violence through 4chan, and the rest of 4chan then turning on THAT guy, effectively handing him over to the police themselves. (They're not evil. Just chaotic.)
No, the rest of us on the Internet aren't about to try and corral them. Many of us dare not even speak their name, for fear of summoning them. We just watch them tear into somebody and we're glad it's not us.
RIAA, MPAA. I'm just glad I'm not you.
Never.
Ever.
EVER.
Piss off 4chan.
4chan does not give a damn about things like 'ethics' or 'laws' or 'privacy' or anything that might stop a normal person from doing awful things to you. They're not going to kill you or anything violent like that (although they will make threats), but they will bombard you with embarrasing things through the mail, they will DDOS your website (as has happened here), they will hack, they will post porn all over the place, all in the name of what they figure to be vigilante justice. Or laughs. Sometimes they do crazy things for laughs. It's sometimes hard to tell.
You remember when someone hacked into Sarah Palin's Yahoo Mail account during the 2008 election? That was 4chan.
You remember when seven different NFL stadiums had to deal with threats of dirty bombs in October 2006? That was 4chan.
You know Rick Astley? The whole rickrolling thing? That was 4chan.
You know those 'trending' topics on Yahoo? If you see something really strange for no good reason, like a swastika, or 'fried chicken', there's a decent chance it's 4chan.
Of course, to be fair, there have been several occasions over the years of some guy threatening violence through 4chan, and the rest of 4chan then turning on THAT guy, effectively handing him over to the police themselves. (They're not evil. Just chaotic.)
No, the rest of us on the Internet aren't about to try and corral them. Many of us dare not even speak their name, for fear of summoning them. We just watch them tear into somebody and we're glad it's not us.
RIAA, MPAA. I'm just glad I'm not you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)