Just Another Cuil Review.

Seems like everyone is blogging about Cuil these days, and I think I’ll join in on this bandwagon. Cuil is a brand new search engine that was designed by some ex-google employees (as far as I understand).

The concept is basically to present search results in a pseudo-magazine type format to give you a better idea of what it actually on each page, and also give you a list of subjects you might have been looking for.

Go ahead. Try it out. I’ll wait.

Finished? Well you may have noticed you got either exactly what you were searching for, or a bunch of sites that weren’t even close.

I actually do like the concept. Especially the list of relevant subjects to refine your search, could be potentially really useful. It would be, that is, if it actually worked.

Don’t believe me? Try searching for “Cuil” using the search engine. Just try it. These were the top five subject results that I got:

1. Towns and Villages in Sligo
2. French Cuisine
3. French Breads
4. Lochaber
5. Gems of Scotland

If you are not listed on your own search engine, then you have problems.

EDIT: Seems like they have changed it since the time this was posted. Notice how they don't list any of the negetive reviews of the site?

Google, Our Savior.

A few days ago, I was reading an article from Discover magazine all about the new advancements in google earth technology. The article talks about privacy issues, and the question of "What happens if the terrorists know where we are hiding our nuclear bombs?!?"

Excellent question. But here's a better one:

How did it come to pass that a company like Google, was the first to show us whats really in our own backyards?

As a taxpayer, if my country was harbouring nuclear subs, or aliens in a secret military base in New Mexico, I believe it's my right as a citizen to know about it. I really don't care what sort of "implications" may come with this information being public. I want to know exactly what my money is being used for, and where they are hiding it.

Would our governments really have openly shown us all this if it weren't for Google Earth? Maybe, eventually. If we had fought hard enough for it. But let's come back to the original question. Why did it take a corporation to pull back the curtain and show us what's really lurking behind it? Why wasn't this information public knowledge in the first place?

I love google as much as the next internet addict, but something about this made me uncomfortable. Any thoughts on this?

Today I believe in...

As a self proclaimed atheist, I’ve been puttering around the atheist communities out there recently, in attempt to connect with those who believe, like me, that the best way to contribute something to the world and be a good person, is to put your faith in yourself first before any sort of deity. But while I was taking a mosey around some of the online communities, I was surprised and a little peeved at what I found.

First let me show you a video that I found on one such community:



And for a little balance, the heated response:



The first video made me very sad to watch. Many of those reasons are why I personally don’t believe in a god, but to say that all Christians are delusional? It’s completely unfair.

Atheists are constantly up in arms complaining about all the Christians that try to convince them that God is great, and they will be punished for not believing. Of course that’s not right. We should be able to believe in whatever we like. But to turn around and say that they are all delusional, and that the belief in god is some sort of mental illness, is insulting.

It’s insulting not just to the religious community, but to me as an atheist. If you believe in god because it helps you be a better person, and to make the right choices, I’m all for it. When did atheism turn from belief in yourself, to the belief that theists are stupid?

Freedom of speech is wonderful. If you think that theists are wrong, that’s fine. If you think that atheists are unenlightened heathens, that’s fine too. And I defend your right to say that, but I think there is a way to express your beliefs without insulting anyone else’s.

If you’re a theist, I expect you have thought about it a lot, and have ultimately decided that god is real. And I totally respect that, so I’m not going to go around trying to convince you you’re wrong. And I would expect the same in return. Anything else would be counter-productive.

What do you believe in today?

You Could Be the Next Monet.

Well, of the sandwich anyways. It would seem that subway has ceased to hire "Sandwich makers" or whatever you would call them, and is now comprised of a team of "Sandwich Artists". Subway people could probably tell you this has been going on for a while, but I never noticed until a few days ago.

This really got me thinking about employment driven advertising, and who really benefits from it.

Surely it's not the potential employee. Any self-respecting person who is employed at subway, won't have any illusions of greater integrity if addressed as a "Sandwich Artist". Nor will I (speaking from the ranks of the unemployed) have any greater motivation to apply there, as the term is completely transparent. Everyone knows exactly what they're talking about.

So is it in the company's best interest? Well, not really. I don't think that it would have an effect on thier recruitment numbers, nor will they have to pay exsisting employees more by referring to them as "artists". No one is going to think of Subway as any more or any less dignified. Nothing gained, nothing lost.

So what's the point of it? Obviously, I have no clue, and I'm just rambling as usual.

What do you think? Is there any rhyme or reason for this? Or is it all just bad advertising?

Poor Marketing Leaves Everyone Unhappy.

Yesterday I went to see the X-Files: I Want To Believe at midnight. What did I think of the movie? Well, it's all here at my journal. But thats not really what I want to talk about.

The movie ended up decent, but not much better than that. This really had me scratching my head going "What were they thinking?"

The X-Files was one of the biggest fandoms of the nineties. As far as I could tell, everyone watched it in some shape or form. It has a massive fanbase that was more or less completely ignored in the marketing of the film.

The way I see it, the studio lost alot of money with the film. The budget wasn't that big, the plot wasn't that good, and the marketing that they did have for the film was minimal.

If they had shelled out the money to make a great film, and actually put in some money to market it better, the film could have been a huge hit. They could have really leveraged the mass appeal of the X-Files and get fans really excited for the return of Mulder and Scully, and in return make lots of money off it.

Instead they decide to make a film thats passable, and that know one even realizes is coming out. Where's the logic there?

Of course, people tell me that the X-Files was popular ten years ago, and they'd have to reintroduce the characters yada yada yada. In short, no one would care anymore. If that was the case, why even make the movie in the first place? Rule one of filmmaking: If your sequel can't even stand up to the first one, don't do it.

What about the New Kids On The Block? I was just watching MuchMoreMusic and thier video was number four in the countdown. How many people that watch MMM even remember the new kids? Yet somehow they managed a very successful comeback. How did they do it? They put the money out there to make an expensive video, stayed authentic to thier original sound, and marketed thier return decently.

If a crap washed up boyband can be successful in today's music scene, there's alot of hope. Bah, this post is a bit ranty today. I'll try to wrap up.

So what's the point? The studio didn't want to believe, as it were, in the popularity of X-Files and they lost money where they could have made a highly successful film. The fans lost the opportunity to see something great. Really was a lose-lose situation here.

Phew. Enough said from my end here, dear readers. What do you think?

EDIT: This post conicides with a great one from Chris Brogan on Social Media marketing for blockbuster movies. Great Stuff.

File Sharing and Midnight Horrors.

Fluctuated between what I wanted to post about today. It was either this, or well, something else. I suppose you'll find out tomorrow.

So two days ago, I recieved in the mail a book from chapters.ca that I had ordered almost a month ago. I bought it used for of about $12. Pretty good deal, yes? But it got me thinking about sharing content and what's legal and why.

I openly admit, I know absolutely nothing about the music industry. And although I download tons of music, I can certainly see why artists would be frustrated that thier music is circulating with seemingly nothing coming back for them. Especially for new artists that are just trying to make a name for themselves. That part makes total sense. And I can even see why copying music should be illegal.

However, I started to consider used CD and book stores. I actually buy quite a bit of used CD's still. If your looking for an obscure artist, they are certainly the way to go. The point is, that I was thinking about how these used CD and Book Stores are essentially doing the same thing as file sharing, with one difference. These places are making money.

Seems a bit strange to me that if I burn my copy of Abbey Road and give it away, that's illegal. But if I sell it, that's prefectly ok. I do get that the disc is my property and I can sell it as I like, but I just think it's a bit silly that I am allowed to make money over the popularity of the beatles, but I can't simply share thier music. Both ways the artist still isn't being paid for thier work.

And then I considered the Rio. The rio is one of my local cinemas who have just started playing double feature horror movies on the weekend. The plan? Rent two movies from the video store, and charge ten bucks a seat to see em'. Great idea, and the profit return would be huge. But apparently, they aren't legally allowed to make money off showing a movie they rented. (I wish I could remember the source for that info, but alas.) That didn't make any sense to me. I just don't get why charging money to see a movie you picked up legally is illegal, but selling it is.

So what am I really talking about here? Is it that the music/movie industry has screwed up priorities? Maybe.

Am I complaining that file sharing being a crime is inconvenient? You bet.

If I secretly have any readers lurking around out there, be sure to put in your two cents. Do you think file sharing should be illegal, still? Is it fair to equate file sharing with selling music?

Digital Inaccuracies and Human Error

Whenever I’m at home, I only use one instrument to check the time, and that is the time on my VCR. Yes, I still own a VCR and actually use it, but that’s besides the point.

The time displayed on my VCR is always about five minutes slow. Sure, I change it to the right time every so often. But it seems like a month later the numbers are always lagging behind what the Greenwich Mean Time tells me it should be.

I could never really figure out why this was. From my point of view, once something is programmed it should always be the same. When my VCR learned what a second was, shouldn’t that always be the same?

People that are much more technical than I am would probably realize how often technology fucks up, but I never did. Why are so many of us under the mindset that technology is more accurate and reliable than the old fashioned way?

Really, why should the time on my VCR be more accurate than my ten dollar ikea wall clock? And why shouldn’t mathemagics guy be more accurate than a calculator?

Probably because nine out of ten times technology is more accurate than the human mind. That's just the way things are.

So what’s the point here?

Really, I have no clue. I’m just frustrated with my VCR is all.

What American Troops in Afghanistan?

Yesterday I heard from CNN that there have been more US and NATO troop deaths in Afghanistan than Iraq in recent months.

Umm. What?

I understand that the situation in Afghanistan is far from stable. But the part that really had me scratching my head was this. What American troops in Afghanistan?

OK yeah, I haven't been paying nearly as much attention to the war as I probably should be. And I'm kinda ashamed to say that I had no idea there was even any significant American military force in Afghanistan. From what I've been hearing in the media up to now is that the Canadian forces took up the lead in Afghanistan after the Americans pretty much abandoned the cause to do whatever it is they are doing in Iraq.

According to the article from the associated press, there are still a good 30,000 american troops in Afghanistan. Compare that to the 2,500 standard complement of Canadian troops. So why on earth did I think the canucks were alone over there?

Is it my own ignorance? Is it the American media for neglecting thier own significant force in Afghanistan since Iraq? Is it the Canadian media for downplaying the contribution of our American neighbours?

Maybe it's all three. But it got me thinking about how much we really rely on newsmedia for infomation on things like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We really have no clue what is going on over there. Everything that we know comes from the mass media. You know what? That makes me a tad uncomfortable.

So what matters more to newsmedia, giving us content that we care more about, or giving us content that is unbiased and accurate? Honestly? I don't think I want to know.

What would you rather be getting out of your news? Something that focuses on the issues you care about? Or a newscast thats balanced and fair? Is it possible to have both?

The One Millionth Word and the Simplification of Language.

I have no idea how many words are in the English language. It's either approaching, or exceeding one million individual words. Each one expressing something unique. Many of them sharing the same meaning, but we use them to express totally different ideas. A good example would be childish versus childlike. They mean the same thing, but are yet totally different.

Remember in high school or whenever you first read 1984? I'm assuming almost everyone has. Pretty much required reading for any high school. Anyways, my grade 12 English teacher seemed to think that Orwell was making a statement against over-complicating language with too many words. She seemed to think that he wasn't parodying people that wanted fewer words, but showing how it could improve things. Fewer words, in her opinion, could allow us to understand eachother better.

I think she couldn't be more wrong. I always thought that Orwell was showing how because we have so many words available to us, it is easier to express exactly what we mean, and how we feel. Lack of words does not limit what we can express. Simply saying "I feel happy" doesn't mean anything. The fact that we can say "I feel ecstatic" or "I feel content" or "cheerful" or "optimistic". Is of a much greater value.

I think this is especially relevant to digital communication. When we try to express ideas on the internet, %100 of what your readers take out of it will be in your words. In the real world only about %7 of communication is based on words and we have to be really careful which words we use, and which we leave out to precisely express our position. I say, the more words we have available to do this with the better.

Any thoughts? Are more words adding to the network or just getting in the way?

Welcome!

Well, if you hadn't already noticed this blog is brand new. It will be about anything and everything that matters to me. Most of the entries will draw back to the ideas of social media and the so called digital revolution. Some will not.

Anyways, I've gone back through some old entries I made over at my livejournal that I thought would be relevant and posted them here so there would be more to read than just this boring old "official" first post.

Yupp, so I hope you enjoy it. :)

What's The Matter With Love Everyone?

A couple of days ago I went to see The Dark Knight at midnight with about five of my pals. Having the love for Batman that we do, we decided to line up at noon, and start the twelve hour marathon of waiting in line. Sitting on a hard floor with little but comics and ourselves to entertain each other can be draining to say the least, and by the end, I think we were all a little grumpy. You can read more about it here at my personal journal. Luckily, we only had an almost-argument once. And this is what it was about.

What's the matter with love everyone?

The story goes that the people behind us in line (and who had been waiting a lengthy amount of time themselves) were not really what you think of when you think “batman fans” They seemed to be about fifteen years old. The girls in mini-skirts and screechy laughs, the boys just seemed to be there for the hell of it. Then there’s us. A giant stack of comics, carefully decorated batman cupcakes for nourishment, and having Rubik’s cube wars.

Now one of the people in my party seemed to have a problem with the folks behind us in line. She resented them for throwing themselves behind a fandom that they knew nothing about (or so she thought, whether they actually did, I have no idea). She thought they were annoying based on the shrill tone in their voices, based on their enthusiasm for something that didn’t fit how they presented themselves.

I didn’t find them annoying in the least. It's not like they were going out of thier way to bother us. What people choose to do with their time is of no concern of mine. I don’t care how much you know about batman, or how many comics you have. I just think it’s cool that we like the same thing. That doesn’t mean that I think we will get along, or I want to be BFF or anything like that. I just don’t see why it matters how you present yourself, if you are a good person inside.

The argument is that it is human nature to pre-judge someone. Sure it is. Heck, I do it all the time. But I would never decide that I didn’t want to connect with someone based on what they look like. And I don’t see why other people do.

So whats really so hard about having the mindset that we are all human beings, therefore we all deserve respect. Really?

I don’t understand why it would be unethical to actively judge someone on the colour of their skin, their gender, religion or whatever, and it is socially acceptable to judge based on what someone is wearing or how they laugh, or who they hang with. Don’t tell me it’s different because it’s not. Race and gender you can’t really change, but they define you as much as your outfit of the day does. We all get upset when people stereotype us, so why on earth would you do it to someone else? Just because I had to earn your respect, doesn't mean you have to earn mine.

Me? Some days I wear dresses and listen to ACDC. Other days I’m sporting my Seahawks t-shirt, converse, and jamming to McFly. I love comic books, but know all the words to the Spice Girls. None of these qualities define me, and we shouldn’t assume that they do anyone else.

Why can’t we just put aside all of our first impressions and make the conscious decision to wait till we hear what someone has to say before passing judgement. It’s really quite easy. People have told me that this is an unrealistically optimistic view to have. I think it’s not. Not by a long shot. I don’t want to miss an opportunity to have some great conversations or meet new people based some messed up sensor in my head that may say “this person can’t have anything relevant to say, don’t talk to them”.

The world won’t stop turning if you just put aside those judgements and treat everyone with the respect and dignity they deserve. And hey, you never know, maybe the girl in the mini-skirt has something really relevant and interesting to say, but then again, you weren’t really listening were you?

Phew, I think this is my longest post yet. Anyways, I’d love to hear what you think.

Is it acceptable to judge based on first impressions? Do you think this “people filter” we all seem to have is more a help in weaning out those we might not connect with, or a hindrance in keeping out those that we might?

Can Learning Be Social?

I read something today in the book I am currently reading, "Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of Digital Disorder" by David Weinberger, that really resonated with me and I wanted to share. It's a pretty good book, but the first third of the book can get a little reptitive while he goes through a world history of classification. But that's besides the point.

Anyways, I got to the point in the book where he gets more into how social media is changing the way we learn and interact, and David Weinberger has this to say:

"Knowing is something done by individuals. It is something that happens inside your brain. The mark of knowing is being able to fill in a paper with the right answers. Knowledge could not get any less social. In fact, in those circumstances when knowledge is social we call it cheating."

I just thought that was so true. Why is it accepted that only learned proffesors have discussions about knowledge, but twelve year olds should not? Wikipedia is changing that by running on the principle that everyone has something to contribute to the conversation, but of course there are still problems as far as it being a reputable source.

Anyways just wanted to share that with you. The rest of the book is pretty good, I recommend it if you are into how the web is changing and things of that nature. If you want to learn more without reading the book, check out this lecture to get in tune with his ideas. Like the lecture the book can get a little reptitive sometimes and have you saying "Ok yeah I get it already!" But it is a good read if your into that kind of thing.

So what do you think? Can learning be effective if it is done socially? Why or why not?

Innocence and Ignorance

A few weeks ago two of my friends and I were sitting in silence, sipping chai lattes and reading savage love. Now, I don't think Savage Love in particularly offensive, nor does it make me uncomfortable reading it at all, but Eric? Not the same story. This guy is from out in Aldergrove where the biggest story of the year was the town getting one additional bus route running through it.

Ok enough prolouge. Here's the story. I thought to myself "Oh Eric, too innocent for this world." But then I went home and started thinking more about the use of the word "innocent". Usually we use it to talk about young people who are essentially ignorant of the darker side of life.

So what is the difference between innocence and ignorance? Why are you scorned if you are ignorant, but praised if you are innocent? Why is it okay to be knowledgeable in some areas, but not others? Why should we have to know certain things when we reach a certain age, but never before then? Aah, to many questions, too little answers.

On the other hand, what is the word "innocent" supposed to mean anyways?

Free from wrong.

By using the term "innocent" to describe someone who knows next to nothing about sex, or drugs, or anything of that nature, does that mean the rest of us are guilty or something?

Guilty of what? Guilty of having a more developed understanding of certain human practices, and human nature? Or Guilty of wishing we all had our innocence back?

I certainly don't think so. Putting a label like "innoncence" on something that is really more like ignorance makes everyone else seem like they have something to be ashamed of. Something to be guilty of. If this is any indication of where things are going, I'm concerned.

OK yeah this was a pretty poorly constructed post. And I generalize alot, and I am pretty tired, but I think you get the idea. >.<

The Conundrum of Conversation

So what I wanted to talk about today was something I recently had an indepth discussion about, and that is conversation.

When was the last time you had an actual conversation about something? I find that so many times these days, I end up talking at someone, instead of talking to them. Our "conversations" are really just I will tell you something that is important to me, then you will tell me something that is important to you. There is no exchange of ideas going on, but merely an exchange of random thoughts, with no information being penetrated.

I find this is often because the people that I am talking too, we don't really have anything in common. Which is fine, of course. You can't really expect to have fandoms in common with everyone. But on the other hand, simply being humans, we all have something in common. And that is our ability to think, feel, and contemplate ideas. You really don't need to have things in common to have a meaningful, and relevant conversation. Let me try to give an example of what I mean.

If I say... "I think facebook is lame. What do you think?" (the phrase "what do you think?" demonstrating my intent to have a conversation) and you say.. "I guess so". End of discussion.

This happens to me all the time. Don't get me wrong, I know that you don't have to have an opinion about everything, but why not at least make an effort to think about the issue? It is one of the most satisfying things in the world, to develop your opinions and change your mind, simply from talking to someone else.

I have learned that commnunity conversations are key in todays technological world, but what about in our everyday lives? Why shouldn't we implement these ideas into the real world, and start having real conversations, with real people?

Does Content Really Matter?

Previously, I couldn't see the significance of everything that is going on in the internet right now, because I was stuck on the content aspect of it. Facebook sucks because there is no content, Twitter sucks because there is no content, Livejournal is good because there is some content somewhere.

But I can see now that content is irrelevant. Not completely irrelevant, mind you. Mostly though, the content makes no difference. And I will tell you why.

It's not what you are saying that is driving the digital revolution, it is how you are saying it.

It's about making connections with people and ideas that are authentic, and that are you. It doesn't matter what they are, just the fact that it is happening. I know this doesn't make very much sense probably. But let me try to explain why I see this as being so important.

I would guess that most people spend more time online than they do watching TV. I know I certainly do. And now, whenever I do watch TV, I get so frustrated that it is still filled with conventional advertising, mattresses in space, type marketing. And thanks to the social networking revolution, advertising like that will die out altogether very soon. Marketers will have to advertise on an individual basis, by making connections to people, with the individual, over the internet in order to survive. Mass marketing will be a thing of the past.

I suppose in the end, it is sort of like Freedom of Speech. What you are saying with it doesn't really matter. You shouldn't only use it when you have something "meaningful" to say, because it would defeat the whole purpose of it. But it's the idea that you can say whatever the hell you want, that creates this new flow of ideas and information. I attribute most of the western societies successes to the fact that free speech exsists.

It's not what you say that will make the difference, it is how you are saying it that will start making the difference.

What do you think? Does content really matter? Or does it just create a wasteland of ideas to sort through?

Authenticity and Content

So last night I was listening to Six Pixels Of Seperation. This guy was talking about blogging, and how to make content that matters. Basically, what he was saying was that a good internet presence in todays society is about giving people content that they actually care about, and at the same time, making it authentic. I think he's right, but I could see a pattern unfolding.

Have you ever noticed how people on the internet are (generally) alot, well, meaner than they are in real life? Now I'm not just talking about those really annoying people in the forums, or in the eljay communities. But, really, everyone. Haven't you ever said something to someone on msn, or through the internet that was just plain mean? Or gotten into a huge fight on msn? If for no other reason that you could say it without having to look the other person in the eye.

Since the internet is the perfect place to be someone your not, often what people become are assholes. They can be who they want, and they can say what they want. The anonymity is perfect for this. There are endless ways to connect to people, and it is virtually impossible to track it back to you, if you wish to be truly anonymous. It is as easy as setting up a bogus email account.

So I guess what I'm saying is this:

Increased ego as a result of anonymity, equals the internet being an altogether bitchy place where people can say/do as they please, equals decreased overall authenticity, which in turn equals decreased quality of content!

And that's the problem! I know I'm not the first person to think of this concept, but for the first time I think I really get it. That is why the internet seems to be filled with nothing but junk these days.

Where's the content?