Helping My Brother Out

My brother started posting video commentary on the financial crisis. He is a banker, and very knowledgeable on the subject. He's a great story teller, and since he's just getting started with the whole blogging thing, I'm helping him out.

You can view his video commentary at his blog, Wall St. WTF.

The financial crisis is taking a toll on everyone, but few seem to be able to explain it. He does a pretty good job of putting the whole mess in terms normal, non-Wall Street people can understand, and he spices it up with a bit of humor.

So check it out!

Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

It is wonderful to see Joss Whedon embracing technology and having the balls to release it to the masses...for free. Though you can download it from iTunes, and it is completely worth it.

It's smart, creative, witty, and the whole cast can sing! Watch it. You'll enjoy it.

Another bonus point to Hulu, too. I am more and more a fan.

Ars Technica Has Been Acquired

I've been a fan of Ars Technica since I started studying IT and Privacy Law. The website has some excellent in-depth articles on current legal tech issues, as well as some really in-depth technical articles. I always learn something new when I visit the website, or gain a deeper understanding of something I already know.

There were a few moments when I caught myself wondering how Ars Technica can stay independent. It's a treasure trove of information, who wouldn't want to acquire it? But there was solace in the fact that it was independent, free from the corporate media tentacles that have acquired a taste for sucking the life out of free speech. There seems to be an agenda, and it is sold to the highest bidder.

So imagine my surprise when I saw this article on TechCrunch discussing the acquition of Ars Technica by Conde Nast/Wired. When the shock passed, and I read the post, it does make some sense. I've always thought Ars Technica the more...how should I put it...smarter version of Wired. Nothing against Wired, I read that too, there was just something more inviting, less busy, about Ars Technica. I'd read it first before Wired.

It's too early to do anything more than speculate, and speculating wouldn't do Ars Technica, or Conde Nast, justice. It will be interesting to see, however, what happens. It's possible there is now more fuel to add to the argument of media no longer being independent, even with the advent of the Internet.

But who knows. Perhaps Ars Technica will remain as is, just with deeper pockets which will allow it to improve and expand its offerings. So where do I send in my application for employment?

Plenty of Time to Ponder

OK. So it has been a few months since my last post. Working full time and going to grad school part time really does eat into one's, well, time.

But, due to circumstances beyond my control, I now have plenty of time on my hands, and time to sit and ponder. There is quite a bit to consider. Take, for example, this TechCrunch article showing that people spend most of their computer time using Microsoft products. Not really a big surprise there, but what is interesting are things that are missing, and things I used (and use even more now) every day.

Meebo, for example. It's a pretty nifty online application that lets you manage all of your instant messaging clients right from a Web browser. I have friends you use AIM, others who use YIM, GTalk and even ICQ. Since downloading any of those apps would violate company policy (while on a company laptop), Meebo made it possible for me to communicate and without violating company policy. I'm such a fan, I use it on my own laptop as well. Now if only there was a mobile version...

And it seems as if communication tools beat out all others in the battle for time. From a business perspective, this makes sense. Business is communication, and in this tech-driven age with remote offices and telecommuters, communication tools are even more essential. I, for one, am a bigger fan of chat and email than phone calls. It's easier to multi-task when communicating via chat or email.

In other news...Facebook and 49 states (Texas being the only hold out) struck a safety and privacy deal, according to TechCrunch. That will be very interesting to watch. Firing of associates is big news over on the WSJ's Law Blog, which is an enjoyable blog, as is the WSJ's BizTech blog. They are waging a small war over tech jargon. Just goes to show how writers are starting to forget that search engines are not the primary audience, and that the semantic Web does, indeed, exist. Simplicity of language is still the best route, so best of luck to the BizTech blog and it's fight against tech jargon, or mumbo-jumbo.

And how can anyone forget the recent dissolution of the Microsoft-Yahoo deal, dubbed MicroHoo. I still don't know what to think about Yahoo outsourcing its search advertising to Google. Anti-trust implications, possibly. Helpful to Yahoo but hurtful to the search market, possibly. Is Microsoft finished? Certainly not. It does need to improve its Office Live application as it is not nearly as easy or intuitive as Google Docs or ZoHo. Personally, I think ZoHo is one of the best kept secrets on the Web.

Big Think: The Best Combination of New Technology?

I was browsing the New York Times this morning and came across this article about Big Think, a "YouTube for ideas," the article states.

The tag line on Big Think is "We are what you think," not "WE are what WE think," but "WE are what YOU think." Interesting phrasing.

The concept seems to combine the best features of the latest technology from sites like YouTube and Digg. You can post multimedia opinions and comments, or just text, and rate other peoples opinions. "Welcome to the conversation" indeed.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and who from the common people, the masses, if you will, posts to Big Think. Will people embrace such an open concept usually reserved for discussion groups in college as much as they have embraced the absurdity of every day life on YouTube?

More ruminations to follow....

BigString: No More Sender Regret

I saw the founder and CEO of BigString on CNBC's "The Big Idea" and thought, hey, awesome.

It's an email service, with a twist. Not only can you send and receive email, but you can also send "self-destruct" email, which is Mission:Impossible style email as they describe it on the website, recallable/erasable email and a variety of other means, including video email.

There have been numerous instances of emails being sent on the fly, causing mischief and mayhem as the contents were, well, less than civil. Emails fired off in the heat of the moment instead of taking a few to chill. And email sits out in the ether of the Web, stored somewhere and never really erased. There's always the possibility, however remote, that a particular email will come back to haunt you.

BigString, therefore, is on to something. The ability to make a troublesome email go poof is enticing, and removes any incentive to think before you type.

Too bad Enron didn't have such a service at its disposal, though it seems as if the White House does since emails are still, ahem, missing.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how BigString and its email elimination business does. No doubt there is a market for it. And who knows what could be next. Now that people are understanding that the Web is public domain, plenty want information removed and have discovered that it is not quite that easy; information is never completely removed.

Perhaps this will lead to a solution, and more privacy and ethical battles are sure to ensue.

Semantic Language Search....

I stumbled upon Powerset while reading a post on the New York Times blog Bits. Naturally I had to check out the Powerset Blog where I was delighted to read posts from Marti Hearst, an associate professor in the School of Information at UC-Berkeley, and Doug Cutrell, a Powerset engineer.

Language has always been fascinating to me, and one of the things that has been frustrating with search engines is having to think through a series of search terms in order to find useful information. I got a crash course in search terms when I worked in online marketing, and after you do it enough, it becomes second nature. You start to wonder what is wrong with people who can't seem to find useful information on the Web. One word searches are out! It's the two, three, sometimes four-word phrases that bring up the results you want. The trick is to find the right combination, or search phrase.

Now working as a communications consultant, language has taken on a different meaning. Writing procedures requires being exact in language, directing the end user through a specific set of steps to achieve a specific end result. A systematic execution, if you will. Search, if you think about it, is random. You have an idea of what you're looking for, and type in words you think apply to the idea and continue doing so until you find useful information. Most people call that trial and error. With practice comes improvement, but in the end, it is still trial and error.

Powerset seems to me to be taking a more systematic execution approach to search, first by removing the guesswork involved and second by appealing to the natural use of language, as in full statements, questions, etc. instead of a random mix of keywords that may or may not produce the desire result.

Makes me wonder if the days of audio search, where I will be dictating a procedure and have to search for something online simply by speaking the phrase or sentence, is closer than originally thought.

Google Book Sharing Not the First

There's this post on the Google Blog about enhancements to its book search, namely the ability to create a "virtual bookshelf." That's all fine and dandy, and it being Google, undoubtedly the searchability is good.

But this isn't the first "virtual bookshelf" that you can share with others, and I doubt it will be the last. There is another website called Sheflari that lets you find, collect and share books in a "virtual bookshelf," and exchange comments, reviews and suggestions with other users. You can embed your Shelfari into your website, blog or online profile as well.

I've been using Shelfari to being a digital catalog of all the books I have read. It's turned out to be a bit of an undertaking as I have lists strewn about of the 100s of books I have read, and a journal of sorts I received as a gift to chronicle the books I have read, favorite passages, books I want to read, etc. There is something more gratifying about updating my Shelfari page and then seeing who else has read the same book, what they have to say about it and making a connection.

Google's addition to its Book Search has the same potential, and is yet another example of Google knowing anything and everything about you. Maybe you don't mind, but I have second thoughts about putting all my eggs, as it were, in one basket. That, and there isn't the information overload with Shelfari as there is with Google Books.

Time, Money and Resources

Google and the American Blind and Wallpaper Factory have settled the trademark infringement lawsuit. And then there is the article about news wires like the AP agreeing to license news feeds to Google.

All of this fits well with an article in The Economist: Who is Afraid of Google?

The answer seems to be no one. Google has demonstrated, on more than one occasion, it has enough time, money and resources to fight any and every lawsuit hurled at it. Google also has the time, money and resources to impose its will on governmental agencies, and play an increasingly larger role in the shaping of public policy to fit its own agenda, only under the guise of improving information flow for the masses.

There is its post on patent reform, its lengthy posts on the telecom spectrum, all of which sounds very much like running commentary on governmental policies that pertain to technology, except that the commentary is coming from a source that millions of people blindly trust.

This issue came up on the "L" ride home from class last night, and at a dinner party I attended over the weekend. My generation and younger have no qualms about freely posting information about ourselves to the Internet, or freely sharing information via searches with engines like Google. And, if you think about it, if you use any of Google's free services, Google has even more information about you. I have yet to read somewhere that says something along the lines of Google employees not being able to read your documents or your email or access Google Checkout account information.

Makes you wonder exactly what kind of security, if any, they use to monitor employees access to customer information, as it were. For all I know, a Google employee has been joyfully reading my email, and checking every so often to read the next chapter of my novel.

What it boils down to is that people in my generation and younger have decided to make a trade off: less control over personal information for convenient accessibility anywhere. Using something like Google Docs & Spreadsheets, or ZoHo (which actually has a much better interface, more options and is more user-friendly) gives me the convince of being able to work from any computer with a browser and an Internet connection, but in return, I have to provide what amounts to personal information to which ever online document client I choose.

With all the news in recent weeks about databases being hacked, such as Monster and Loyola University-Chicago, I wonder if a few of these aren't warm-ups, testing hacks to get at the wealth of information stored in search engines. Some might say no place is safe, and that it is only a matter of time.

Which makes you wonder, would search engines notify you of the possibility of compromised information, or are we really better off using Google Docs & Spreadsheets just to keep notes or reminders, and not to keep anything useful or important? Afterall, with Microsoft Word documents, you're major security concern is just your laptop, which is more often than not completely in your possession.

Brief Update

So it's been awhile since I've posted anything. Things have been rather crazy all the way round since my acceptance to the M.S. program in Information Technology Law at John Marshall. I forgot how much preparation goes into school, not mention the fact that it is graduate school so there is even more paperwork and stuff to do. And work has really picked up with large projects and roll outs happening.

Plenty has been going on, from the release of the long anticipated iPhone to the broadband issues (posted everywhere on the Official Google Blog and then the Google Public Policy Blog. Talk about duplicate content!) and the frenzy of media acquisitions. The Internet, for now, seems to be the only place where more than one voice is heard. Certainly not in newspapers or magazines since, well, they are all owned by Murdoch and 4 other people. Limited perspective anyone?

A guy I know said that Google should start acquiring large media giants so, at the very least, information is all in one spot, even if it ends up being the same information. He thinks Google will shift to being more of acquisition company and less of a technology company. As gigantic corporations continually demonstrate, why do the work yourself when you can buy people to do it for you? Or so he says.

Just as Google's slogan "Don't be Evil" is taken cum grano salis, so must its blah blah blah about search being its top priority. Isn't the company about innovation, which requires change and adaptation? To organize the world's information, won't it need to change and adapt?

Oops. Right. We're talking about Google. The world is supposed to change and adapt to it. My bad.

"Information Overload"

I was reading this article in the New York Times today that discusses the "the postsearch wave, the Internet ad market 2.0" and it reminded me of two things. First, display ads are appearing more often now on websites like NTY, Chicago Tribune, PC Magazine and the like. Advertisers have figured out that pop-ups are annoying, so the ads appear within the page, the "close" button often blending in quite nicely so it's hard to find. Drop downs are gaining in popularity as well; those ads that when you roll over them, the bottom drops, presenting you with a complete ad. The graphics have come along way, some of the ads are kind of cool, but I'm starting to be more careful where I place my mouse.

The second thing that popped into my head as I was reading the article was "information overload," a phrase that seems to be tossed around quite a bit these days. Information seems to be reaching that economy of scale, with hardware, software and broadband connections getting cheaper by the day so more and more people have access to tools and information, essentially giving everyone a platform from which to do what they please. The amount of information presented on the Web at any given time is staggering, and, unlike watching CNN which repeats the same news all day long, there is always something different.

It is difficult to NOT be informed these days, and find random nuggets of information that may prove beneficial down the line.

Economies of scale. It's no longer about leveling the playing field, but becoming unique. Everyone has the opportunity now, and can watch or read about others and learn. Information as at the finger tips.

Where on the Web Is Matt Lauer, and the Benefits of TV Shows on the Web

I found this article in the New York Times today about Matt Lauer and his travels. NBC has developed an interactive Flash website devoted to following Matt around on the world on his travels.

The whole website is sponsored by Hyundai, and is pretty cool. There is even a game with is reminiscent of "Where in the World is Carmen San Diego?"

I must admit that I have turned more and more to the Web to watch TV shows. I am not home much during the week when TV shows I watch, like "Grey's Anatomy," "CSI," and "The Office" are on. I used to tape them and spend my Saturday afternoon catching up, but taping become a cumbersome task I stopped doing and fell behind. There was benefit in NetFlix, but by the time I catch up on one season, I'm behind two!

Then I saw a rerun of "Grey's" on a Friday night when I was one, and there was a blurb saying that you can watch the show online. I've been doing that ever since, and found that other networks also had shows on the Web. So now I don't have to worry about setting the VCR, I don't have to wait the length of a season to catch up on a season and I don't miss out on my favorite shows.

I simply turn to the Web, and all is well. And sometimes, I watch shows out of curiosity that I would normally skip to watch something else on TV.

Technology can be a beautiful thing.

Lorem Ipsum Employment Law

A friend with time and money on his hands, spends his time trolling the Internet for random stuff. He found this while trolling and it struck me as funny.

It's the website of an employment law firm, and something must've gone somewhere since their page related to has placement holder text on it. Ha! A law firm, an employment law firm, has placement text on its live website. That's funny. And how embarrassing for the law firm, and the web design company, assuming they even know about it.

Sort of makes you wonder what else is a "place holder" on that website, doesn't it? And who exactly wasn't paying attention? The law firm? Or whatever company designed the website? I'd think twice about hiring either one!

Or maybe they've noticed by now and fixed it.

Anyway, it was a good chuckle. Thanks JJ!

Obscure Reference? Subtle for the True Romantic? Or Just a Botched Sketch?

Found this post from Digg about the Google logo for this Valentine's Day and how it is possibly an obscure reference to Barnbe Googe, a 16th Century poet or of Debbie Googe of "My Bloody Valentine."

Google itself has weighed in on its Google Doodle, claiming "that those with true romance and poetry in their soul will see the subtlety immediately." Is that a defense for a botched Google Doodle?

Follow the link in my earlier post and there is a mention that the stem of the strawberry is supposed to be the "l" in Google.

Even if that is the case, it is still incorrectly placed.

It's not every day people question the Google logo, and the Web is certainly making the most of it. No doubt there are some people infuriated at the idea that Google believes they do not have any romance or poetry in their soul.

Which might beg one to answer: what does Google know about poetry and romance? And if they are all about making information free to the world, why are they unwilling, or reluctant, to share the meaning being the subtly of today's Google Doodle?

Then remember that Google wants to make information free to the world that does not pertain to Google. If you are watching the right hand, you'll forget what the left hand is doing.

I think this has generate more buzz than the closing and selling of the CitiCorp red umbrella, and proof that you can build and maintain a brand on the Internet. Just be careful what you sketch and post so as not to confuse users.

Funny "Apple's New Product" Contest

From the Poguemyster at NYT, a blurb about a contest at Worth1000.com that is asking for designs for Apple products that don't exist.

Take a look at it here.

Some of them are really funny and quite clever, with a good play on words or phrases. Some are overdone and get rather redundant.

My favorites include the "iSuck" vacuum and the "iRol."

And yes David, the "iRon" is also good. And so is the "iGlu" but enough. See for yourself. Entertaining stuff!

Pogue Humor

From David Pogue's Blog, Pogue's Posts, on the New York Times website:

Ode to the R.I.A.A.

Worth sharing, and just in case you haven't seen it yet, or don't read his blog to begin with, in which case you should start!

Terrorists Using Google Earth? Shocking

John Battelle has a post on his blog about a NY Post article and a more detailed one at the Telegraph about how terrorists are using Google Earth to locate British bases.

This part of the Telegraph article I find rather amusing:

A Google spokesman said the information could be used for "good and bad" and was available to the public in many forms. "Of course we are always ready to listen to governments' requests," he said.

"We have opened channels with the military in Iraq but we are not prepared to discuss what we have discussed with them. But we do listen and we are sensitive to requests."

"Always ready to listen to governments' requests." Interesting phrasing, wouldn't you say? Sure. They'll listen. Hell, anyone will listen. But would they do anything? I mean, c'mon, they listened and more than likely read subpoenas for search queries from the US government, but didn't fork anything over. They listened, quite well clearly, to the demands of the Chinese government and complied in order to launch Google in China and listened but didn't pay much attention to the backlash they received for giving into China.

Also, if a product like Google Maps can be used for "good and bad," doesn't that violate the Google policy of "Do no evil"? Or are they going to hide behind the thinking that once the produce is out there, they are not responsible for how people use it?

Seems as if technology, especially at a company like Google, will push ahead and deal with legal ramifications later and in the process set a rather dangerous precedent.

So would the lack of net neutrality limit the ability of terrorists to use Google Earth?

Email vs Letter Writing

The Lede, a blog on the New York Times website, has a curious entry from yesterday called "Whither the Historians of Science in the Age of E-Mail?", has me arguing with myself over the pros and cons of email vs. the seemingly lost art of letter writing. I have written a few letters in my time, and rarely think to make a copy (who needs more paper, after all) so when I get a response, I can't quite remember what was in the original letter. Reading the response becomes sort of a treasure hunt, pouring of the words for clues as to what I had written about and most of the time there is enough evidence to piece it all together.

That is not a problem with email, especially with email clients like Gmail that create threads for each message you send, assuming you don't always create a new message when responding to an email. I often which text messaging was the same. It is rather frustrating to get the txt msg shrt hnd and not know to what the message is referring.

However, as has happened to me, once you delete an email, from the Inbox or Sent Message box, it is gone. There is no getting it back. And such actions must be done in order to create space, which was an issue before Gmail existed. So who knows what emails I have deleted from my other email account that might prove useful in crafting a story say, or researching a topic of interest.

Then again, paper is not immune to disaster either. It is quite combustible, after all, but you can decide on whether or not you want to keep it simply by scanning the contents instead of guessing by the subject line whether or not you want to go through the trouble to read it and see if it is worth keeping.

On the other hand, email doesn't quite disintegrate over time like paper. Email doesn't yellow at the edges or require gloves to handle it. But there also isn't the same feel you get from reading email that you get from holding and reading a letter.

So is one really better than the other? Will future historians lose out on something by having to read through email more so than letters? And won't future historians be so used to technology anyway that the idea of letter writing will seem, how to put it, archaic?

Of Botnets and Security

There is an article in the New York Times today called "Attack of the Zombie Computers is Growing Threat which sheds more light on the issue of botnets and bot attacks and how far more advanced they are becoming. It is frightening how advanced these networks have become, and how quickly they have adapted to changes and used email as a means to build larger and larger networks.

There have been quite a few instances of stolen data, from government agencies to universities, which has brought information security to the forefront of everyone's mind. Many people try to downplay the idea of identity theft, until it happens and they discover first hand just how difficult it is to prove you are you and that your identity was in fact stolen.

This brings to the light the fact that everyone, from consumers to SPAM protection companies to ISPs seems to have been caught off guard, or simply stopped paying attention. Course, why would you pay attention when people so willing purchase your protection software even though the protection software doesn't seem to be doing any good.

And you know, spammers have gotten even smarted than just building better bots that create better (undetected) networks. They've started to use the brand identity, what people associate with protection and security, so that it is even more difficult for the consumer to figure out which is real and which isn't.

They've got the best of both worlds: almost absolute anonymity, low risk and a large income no doubt tax free.

I wonder if it would be cheaper for corporations and all of the security software firms to hire these people to create security software that will actually protect. And what sort of offer could corporations and security software firms offer that is better than what the hackers are getting?

Would such a move cut down on operating costs and turn the tide of this battle? Are there even hackers out there who would switch sides?

What, really, is the best way to deal with this problem?

A Blog More Useless than the Google Blog

There has been a fair amount of debate over the Official Google Blog about whether or not it is a blog. I think Wednesday's post on jobs in Kirkland, Washington, tips the balance in favor of the "company bulletin board" camp, but I actually found a corporate blog that is far worse than anything I have seen so far.

There is an argument to be made that it is not a blog at all, but rather an attempt to generate revenue since the first 3/4 of the blog, as it were, are nothing but AdSense ads. Aside from its title, "iz zizzle blog," you wouldn't even know it was a blog in terms of what we have all come to expect from a blog. CORRECTION: It is a SPAM BLOG.

Once you get the past list of AdSense ads, if it were an actual corporate blog, you'd expect a post on something interesting, but instead you get snipets, snipets of old news stories about something call Iz. A Google search (yes, I really did use Google) for "iz" turns out not to be helpful, but a Google search for the "iz zizzle" turns up a toy company, of all things. Judging from the licensing agreements they have with companies such as Disney and Marvel, the company seems reputable. And "Iz," it turns out, is an animatronic DJ, which makes you wonder if the toy company employs former Disney Imagineers. Still, you wouldn't know that from looking at the "blog."

Wonder if the SPAM blog generates much revenue from all of the AdSense ads. Or do people just see all the ads and leave? And a fine example of Google not really weeding out the junk on the Web, which makes me wonder how many people actually find this SPAM blog.

And you know, it doesn't allow comments either. So does that make it more of a SPAM "billboard" than a SPAM blog?

Jan. 5, 2007 6:18pm UPDATE: A comment from someone named J:

Are you sure it is the corporate blog? With a web address of finddatabase.org it doesn't appear to be a company's webspace. (Alsp see http://baby.finddatabase.org/)

Which only illustrates that Google profits from automated blog farms.

Check here for the real website.
http://www.zizzle.com/index.php

No, J, I'm not sure it is the corporate blog, but that's the point, right? It's not a blog, corporate or otherwise, but merely a web page stuffed with links, as you have already observed.

Which raises the following question: does the company know that Google and someone else is making money off of its company name and product? Or have they sanctioned it? And if so, then it sounds like there is a goldmine of opportunity that would be difficult for Google, and everyone else, to ignore. And it doesn't seem like people mind too much. Not Google. Not the Zizzle company. Win-win for all, assuming the thing gets any traffic.

Jan. 8, 2007; 10:39pm UPDATE: A comment from Elliot:

Thanks for that comment, j. That's really good insight. creativeliberty, I disagree that's the point you were making. The new information actually changes the idea significantly. In your post, you directly labeled that spam blog as "a corporate blog," which is extremely misleading. In my opinion, it's totally useless to compare the Google Blog (which is official) with a spam blog which represents a sample of the huge amounts of crap on the web. It may not have been what you meant, but your post is easily misunderstood. In fact, I misunderstood it, thinking that you were actually saying that *corporate* blog is far worse. No, you're wrong. That's a spam blog. It's trash.

I stand corrected. I did refer to it as a "corporate blog" and have hence made a correction. I wonder if there are SPAM Google blogs, blogs that aren't exactly "official Google blogs" but very much look the part to the unsuspecting visitor.

I completely agree, Elliot, that the SPAM blog is indeed a sample of the junk that is found on the Web, and junk Google continues to index, no doubt because they get something from it. Sort of makes you wonder, doesn't it?

In the big scheme of things, isn't a SPAM blog far worse than even the most meaningless corporate blog?

Thanks for the comments!