Social Networking and Business

Apple's Time Machine

2009-12-01T16:51:00.002-05:00

Dear Apple,

Why is it that whenever I use the Time Machine program on my Mac, I am only able to see into the past and not into the future? I wonder if there's any way you could make it so that I'm able to warp my system a few days into the future. For my needs, this feature would be even more helpful that being able to move my system back to a point in time. I can see it now--my term paper and presentation files would appear on my desktop already completed, and I would save a bunch of time.

I encourage your company to consider this avenue for expansion on an existing product. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Every Mac User

Google's "Invbox" Glitch

2008-09-20T16:11:00.000-04:00

Somebody must have been editing the Gmail master template (*tisk tisk*) because for about thirty seconds I noticed my Gmail "Inbox" was now my Gmail "Invbox." I managed to snag a screenshot just before someone corrected the error, but once something is done electronically, it can never be undone. See the picture below, and don't mind the white spaces where I blocked out my own personal e-mails, etc. Look at the "Invbox" link in the upper-left of the screen.

And what's even more ironic? Look at the news feeder on top of the inbox--the news article is from Discovery Channel and talks about a "glitch" in something else.

To Sample, or Not to Sample... That is the Question

2008-04-30T23:15:00.000-04:00

Remember the last time you visited a grocery store that gave out samples of something you particularly liked? How many samples did you have?

If it's something being scooped into a small cup, and given with a small plastic spoon, are you less likely to go back for a second sample? As opposed to a bin with what seems like 4,000 grapes and a heap of toothpicks next to it... How about then- most likely going to have more than one grape?

When I sample food items in a grocery store, particularly fruit items, I am very likely to pick up 2 or 3 chunks of fruit just with one toothpick. Multiply that by several run-throughs, and you'll find that a few people like myself could deplete an entire produce section in a mere hour.

Now, naturally I expect that studies have shown that offering free samples actually does entice more customers to buy a particular product, but to what extent?

Do some companies, like Whole Foods, just experience a large enough profit overall that they can afford to give out free samples, making people more likely to return to the store again and to buy various other items in doing so? Is that the idea? I rarely ever see a Safeway or Giant giving out samples. In all honesty, though, thinking about the free samples when I walk by a Whole Foods is actually what does draw me inside more often than not. If that's the company's goal, then good job! I get sucked in for the cream cheese dips, the guacamole, the grapes, the occasional strawberries, the shakes, crackers, tortilla chips, and not as often the cheese.

*Whew*

And once I'm inside, I try my hardest to resist buying something. However, it seems that right next to each free fruit display, there seems to be a big stack of something that's on sale. Sometimes the deal is too good to pass up. Other times, I feel that any profit the company might potentially make on my frozen fruit purchase has already been undone in the form of free samples that I've consumed earlier in the adventure. For me it's a moot point.

Tell me how you behave when the free samples go out, and what motivates you to go into a store. I go to Safeway for the low prices, and often only buy Sale items. I go into Whole Foods for the free samples, and on the off chance that I do buy something, you can bet it's on Sale.

So, what's a company really get when it puts out free samples in its grocery stores? Return in the form of more frequent customer visits, or return in the form of selling more of the item on display?

Kicking the [Oil] Habit

2008-04-27T00:37:00.000-04:00

With the price of oil going through the roof, it seems that riding a bicycle has become an increasingly better alternative to driving. Riding a bike to and from work is hard work. Starting after a mile, one generally begins to sweat, and it can be quite an arduous trek getting from home to the office. You may have to do it in the snow, or on 100 degree days. It's rewarding in its own right, however people typically ask themselves how practical it is to bike to work.

Now, granted, biking to work doesn't work for all people. If you live too far away from your office, then biking is out of the question. Even if you don't live that far away (5+ miles), you may still find yourself worrying about not being able to respond quickly enough should you get a call from the school nurse about your kid being sick. A number of "life" criteria, essentially, must be met in order for biking to become a viable alternative to driving. Hence, with respect to this phenomenon, the following list has been compiled.

1) One must have a bicycle to ride. Generally, a newer than older bike is better, mainly for reliability's sake.

2) One must carry a lock with them wherever they go. As a result of the risk of theft, the bike commuter must always bring with him/her a lock of moderate quality. A cheap cable lock won't do- it's almost asking to have one's bike ripped off. A heavier lock, for example a chain w/ padlock, is the best way to go. Once one obtains a quality lock however, the weight of the lock can become an issue.

3) One mustn't have kids. Quick response is necessary when dealing with kids... and quick response, while the wind may feel quick on one's face whilst riding, cannot generally be achieved with a bicycle.

4) One must have changes of clothes at their workplace, and have a place to change into those clothes. Invariably, there are 5 months of the year where one is guaranteed to sweat on his/her jaunt to work. Unless one showing up to work smelly and sweaty is an appeal or is necessary for one's job, having a change of clothes there will probably be necessary.

5) One must get to know their local bike shop professionals by first name (for the following reason).

6) One needs accessories. Starting with a floor pump, one will also inevitably need a tire gauge, a helmet, a lock, a chain of sorts to accompany the high-quality lock, a bell, front and rear lights/reflectors, and lubricants. After one's got all that, he/she guaranteed at some point to face either a blown tube or a busted tire/wheel. To repair a flat, one will need to visit his/her friend(s) at the bike shop again. Beyond all this, a rear rack with panniers should also be a consideration.

7) One may be safer in one's car than on one's bike...given the tendency for bicycle accidents, particularly in cities.

Add additional points in the comments section.

As you can see, there are a number of criteria to consider when you're looking to become a bike commuter. Namely, the finances and the sweating are to be remembered when deciding. Affording a bike and its accessories, however, is still a pretty minuscule investment compared to an automobile. In fact, everything above would probably cost less in an entire year than car insurance for just six months. Consider it. Even then, you can calculate the gas you'd save by riding rather than driving- the gas savings alone should be enough of a convincer to switch.

Fluorescent Light Bulbs: Save Something... i.e. Yourself, Earth, Money [Part 2]

2008-02-01T21:28:00.000-05:00

Imagine this: the United States government mandates that all new refrigerators sold in the US must come with fluorescent light bulbs rather than standard incandescent light bulbs. Even better would be if whole states mandated cities to install fluorescent light bulbs on highway and street lights. Read further for some statistics to get an idea of how much electricity and money mandates like this would save everyone.

I've just recently picked up a package of three "ecobulb" fluorescent light bulbs to replace the incandescent light bulbs in my desk lamps. Do you ever see these energy-saving fluorescent light bulbs and think, "Wow those are tall! They'd stick too far out of my lighting socket!" Well, I've lined up my old vs. new light bulbs, and to be honest the fluorescent light bulb is taller, but by mere millimeters. So, all in all, there's really no physical difference, other than the aesthetics of the bulb. You've got twirly things vs. a bulby thing. That's about it.

What about the energy-savings? An average 60-watt [incandescent] light bulb outputs around 900 lumens. One of my new [fluorescent] light bulbs outputs clean white light, versus dirty-feeling yellow light. It gives me the same 900 lumens, although I dare you to guess how many watts of energy it uses to do the same job.
.
...
.....
...
.
That's right: 13 watts!

You're thinking, holy smokes, that's amazing! It's true, it is amazing. What's better? You're familiar, I'm sure, with how hot those old light bulbs get. You can't touch a lightbulb, Oh No, nor can you replace one until 5 or 10 minutes after it's been turned off. These new fluorescent light bulbs give off 60-75% less heat! I can actually adjust my lamp after I turn it on now. Before, I wouldn't dare burn myself on my hot lamp trying to adjust it so I can actually read.

LightsofAmerica sums it up: "90% of the energy consumed by an incandescent bulb is wasted heat. This makes the bulb extremely hot to touch and very unsafe." They also say that fluorescent light bulbs only reach a maximum of 90 degrees F. A jacuzzi is usually 100-104 degrees, so you must realize that this bulb is actually very cool in comparison to the incandescent light bulb that we're all so accustomed to, which can get as hot as 350 degrees F!

But why is it that, according to Deborah Mitchell, only 5% of the light bulbs purchased in the US last year were these superior fluorescents? Cost. It's true that I'll likely pay $3 for a single fluorescent bulb versus $1+ for a typical incandescent bulb. However, FLUORESCENT LIGHTBULBS CAN LAST UP TO 10 TIMES LONGER THAN INCANDESCENT BULBS! What does this mean? Well, you buy less bulbs and pollute the environment less- landfills fill up less quickly and stay cleaner... Oh, the cost benefits? You'll probably save between $50 and $100 over the lifetime of the bulb in electricity costs, assuming that the price of electricity doesn't rise in the next 9 years (the average life span of a fluorescent bulb based on an average of 3 hours of use per day), which is unlikely. So, the savings are actually even greater! In fact, it's even worth it to stock up on fluorescent bulbs now and save them for years to come.

I find it hard to believe that I was so ignorant to the benefits of these bulbs for so long. I've always known that they are more energy efficient, but I have been skeptical about whether or not their higher cost was really offset by savings on the electricity bill. Well... it's quite obvious now. And, it is safe to say that I will never again buy an incandescent light bulb. I've only briefly touched upon the benefits (can you believe it!?) of fluorescent light bulbs in this column. The links in this article actually lead to great sites with a ton of statistics and interesting information. So, please do yourself ($$) and the environment a favor and stay away from those nasty old incandescent light bulbs.

Fast Company says that if every American household swapped an incandescent for a fluorescent, the oil and greenhouse gas savings would equate to pulling 1.3 million cars off the road.

Thanks, CharityGuide, for giving us some final insight on this matter:

"If every household in the United States installed just one 15-watt compact fluorescent light bulb to replace one 60-watt incandescent light bulb, we could save enough energy to provide power to 1.5 million people."

The Air Car!

2007-12-17T21:11:00.000-05:00

I came across this article on The Oil Drum where Big Gav was quickly recapping many of the habitual changes I've proposed as a means by which to conserve oil and eliminate fossil fuel use. Observe:

"These [solutions] include expanding mass transit systems, redesigning cities and towns to make them easier to walk or cycle around (or combining both of these approaches in "transit oriented development"), making greater use of electric cycles (or mopeds), using lightweight materials in vehicle construction, and - most commonly - switching to electric vehicles (particularly, in the medium term, plug-in hybrids)."

An emerging alternative, as the article goes on to reveal, is this concept of air-driven cars. I know, I first thought, "Say what?! Flying cars!?", too. No... what this concept proposes is cars driven by compressed air!

To make compressed air, though, requires fossil fuels because, well, how else is the electricity that needs to do the compressing going to get made? This is the same problem as with making hydrogen fuel for cars. It still requires, at this point in time, fossil fuels to make these alternative forms of energy holders. I say energy holders because, like Big says, "it is an energy storage medium, not an energy source." Fossil fuels are the energy source.

The article says that a company is currently building a plant to market and sell a compressed-air driven car. Many question the legitimacy of this company and/or its vehicle. Even if they are able to get cars rolling off the assembly line, a source of compressed air (perhaps one that can presently pump air into tires, etc.) would need to be within 150 km (93 miles) of every location in the US for everyone to be able to use one. So, as with hydrogen, it looks like California shall lead, and other major cities shall follow. Eventually the mountains and deserts will have their compressed air providing utilities as well.

Now if you're a city dweller, driving a compressed-air vehicle shouldn't cause you any problems because you most likely don't drive long distances (or at least no often), and probably aren't too far from a gas station. The cars are slated to be slightly cheaper than gas-powered cars, coming in at about half the price. But, do you get what you pay for?

Apparently these vehicles will begin to be produced in the near future in India, with several emerging countries like Colombia and Thailand following suit. What I failed to previously mention is that these Air Cars can also use gasoline with an apparent range now of 1240+ miles.

This figure boasts "claimed efficiencies of up to 70%."* Whether or not this concept actually comes to fruition is separate from the fact that compressed air is a much safer propellant than gasoline, and as such driving would become a much less hazardous task. Something to think about.

Buy a Car, Gain Weight; It's That Simple

2007-12-15T23:51:00.000-05:00

Lynn Sloman, in her book "Car Sick," mentions a study performed by Colin Bell, Keyou Ge, and Barry Popkin in China, which analyzed correlations in obesity paired with car ownership.

The study included 4,700 adults, all who previously hadn't owned vehicles. What Sloman mentions is the findings of the study: "If you buy a car, you will put on weight. You will be twice as likely to become clinically obese, and this will lead inexorably to poorer health."

I've always had mixed feelings about car use. Whilst living in Japan, I would think about the places I needed to go. Because the public transportation infrastructure in Japan is so developed, I could get to literally anywhere via public transportation. Time was a consideration, however. I could drive, spending money on gas, or I could spend my money on the train and/or bus.

I would most always take the public transportation route because, even if it took me longer to reach my destination, I saved carbon emissions and never had to worry about parking. Because of parking costs, I almost always saved money by taking the train/bus.

Back to weight gain, though. I knew that by not driving, I would need to walk between train stations and/or bus stops, to/from my departure/destination places from/to the train stations or bus stops. Let me make this clearer by illustrating a typical journey:

By Car:
Drive for 20 minutes to my destination, pay only for gas, no parking.

Time: 20 minutes
Calories Burned: 10
Cost: $1.50 (¥170)

By Train:
Walk to train station for 20 minutes. Wait for train avg. of 5 minutes. Pay train fare and ride train for 13 minutes. Walk to destination for 20 minutes.

Time: 58 minutes
Calories Burned: 210
Cost: $1.05 (¥120)

Obviously a lot more sweat is exerted by the latter means of transport. As you can see, driving cost more, but required far less effort. Essentially, you're paying for the luxury to drive. But, clearly you'll be hanging on to much more weight by driving. How about the much more sensible solution of bike riding:

By Bicycle:
Ride 25 minutes to destination, pay no parking.

Time: 25 minutes
Calories Burned: 150
Cost: $0.00 (¥0)

This is ideal. Don't pay a penny for gas, parking, tolls, or otherwise. And, you still burn the calories. A bicycle is a much smaller investment than a car; at least you're not going to have to take out a mortgage. Because this scenario took place in Japan, between small towns where you cannot drive too fast, bicycling was almost as fast as driving. In this case, bicycles actually have the upper-hand on cars because they can quickly travel back roads and navigate shortcuts.

Clearly there are much more sensible alternatives to transportation than driving a car. In this case, mass transportation could even be avoided. So why don't more people ride bikes or take the train? Apathy. Not driving means moving more than just your arms for a brief period of time, a task which seems to too many overly burdensome. Hence, the weight gain.

I'm not one to enjoy paying for gas, or even for public transportation on occasion, but calories? That's a price I can pay. Rather, a price I'd prefer to pay.

**If you live rurally, then you're a special case, to which special transportation alternatives apply.

The Geriatric Economy

2007-12-15T19:40:00.000-05:00

Someone said to me today, "Old people don't benefit the economy; they should all be shipped to an island."

Shipped to an island to do what? Rot? I think that a lot of industries rely on the older population to be successful. Many drug companies, and cruise line companies, I think would miss a huge percentage of their business if they didn't have customers over the age of 55. So in this sense, the economy is helped. More businesses are able to do more business. Older persons who have saved a lot of money over the course of their life are able to spend it on health care and leisure.

Even today we all save money that we'll spend in our old age. So, psychologically, if there was no old age to look forward to, then we'd all spend our money now rather than later. We save for the days when we're too old to work. Then our life's savings will help us survive. If we have no old age to save for, then we're more likely to spend our money on leisurely pursuits, earlier in our lives, for example on travel, computers, cars, and better housing. So, while different sectors would have greater cash inflow, the economy overall wouldn't necessarily change that much, would it?

Tell me what you think.

Green Shuttles at American University

2007-12-15T02:01:00.000-05:00

The American University, with regards to its efforts to become a greener institution and lessen its environmental impact, has begun to address the needs of its shuttle program. Shuttles typically run upwards of 17 hours per day, and multiple shuttles may run at a time. While these buses travel efficient routes and generally move many passengers at once, they do burn a lot of fuel over time.

According to the on-campus newspaper, The Eagle, the University has been exploring the option of biodiesel. Purchasing the shuttles, while an issue of funding, that would have been the main issue should the University have adopted this route, but rather it is the fuel. Because of the demand for the biodeisel fuel, a special, on-campus facility (i.e. a tank) would need to be built especially for shuttle use. Apparently some sort of liability would have been formed, had this facility been created. When people think biodiesel, I think many stereotypically think 'gasoline mixed with vegetable oil.' In a sense, this isn't too far off, however this particular concoction would have been 20% soy, 80% diesel.

So, while the biodiesel option is out, hybrid is not. The University, in fact, recently explored a hybrid shuttle option. A typical AU shuttle costs $320,000, while a new, hybrid shuttle would cost about $500,000. Obviously the extra cost would need to be recouped by savings in fuel costs or an extension in the usable life of the shuttle. A hybrid shuttle boasts the ability to save up to 40% in fuel costs. The University will explore this option, and hopefully they will adopt it as a good first start toward going greener. What's more, the hybrid shuttles can also run biodiesel fuel! So biodiesel is still a viable option, should the University ever choose to revert back to it, or adopt it in tandem with the hybrid format.

I applaud American University's efforts and initiative in going green. Sustainability is what the University promotes, and sustainability it continues to practice. High-five.

The Win-Win: Mass Transportation To/From Major Cities

2007-12-14T19:47:00.000-05:00

True, buses use a lot of gas, but they save just as much gas. 45 bus riders save 45 cars' worth of gasoline, and the trade-off? Just one bus worth of gas.

So here's a dilemma that is interesting because of its myriad solutions: traffic congestion. How do you get cars moving again? Well, the simple solution is to build more lanes, right? More lanes decongest the traffic. But... in a few years the same problem will be back. It seems like highways are always being widened because they're never large enough.

Instead of making more lanes, what we need to do is make more public transportation. Now, while this concept is not ideal for long distances, say across the country, think about the places where you really are likely to hit the most traffic: around cities. People commute into and out of cities the most. What most cities don't have, but need, is effective public transportation systems. To the suburbs and back, trains and buses need to run on efficient routes where usage is likely to be high. If effective public transportation systems are implemented, people will be enticed to take them. Assuming they're clean, cheap, efficient, and on-time, there's nothing not to like.

So, as Lynn Sloman, in her book "Car Sick" suggests, why not dedicate a lane, or build a lane, on major roads into and out of cities that are reserved specifically for buses? If a bus can peel 45+ cars off the road, then there's no need to build more lanes for traffic. Less cars will be used, and remaining traffic congestion will encourage people to ride the buses. Not only are there monetary savings, but the dedicated lanes will actually make bus transportation just as fast as it would take for people to drive their own cars into the city for work. What's more, commuters who opt for the public transportation option never have to worry about finding, or paying for, a parking space. Throw in the reduced carbon emissions and, therefore, less pollution, and it's clearly a win-win for everyone involved.

Save Something... i.e. Yourself, Earth, Money

2007-12-14T00:07:00.000-05:00

We're addicted to cars and oil in the United States. I say "we," however there are many of us, while a minority, that do not follow the rest of the country's consumption habits.

Essentially, part of the problem that is 'natural resource overconsumption' includes a lack of public transportation infrastructure. Likewise, the spread-out nature of our cities, towns, and suburbs promote the use of individual cars as modes of transportation. For many people, there is no option but to drive your own car. How about those that live in cities, or suburbs that have public transportation available into the city?

It is the responsibility of people who have the ability to go green, by commuting to work via public or shared means, to do so. The world's oil supply is running dry and growing demand from India and China are not going to make the supply any more abundant. Rather than 45 people driving their cars to work, think about the effort, gasoline, frustration, and lack of productivity that those 45 people could save by taking a bus. Think about how much more productive our society could be, given the functionality that Blackberry and PDA devices provide nowadays. By the time you get to work in the morning, there are probably a dozen e-mails awaiting your immediate response. Why not see to them all during your commute, and relieve the stress placed on the rest of your day?

If you can take public transportation, dump your car. There are means of getting around not having a car. Live near a public transportation station, either rail or bus, that can get you to work. Carpool with a friend to work, or drive to the nearest bus/train station and commute from there. When you think about it, you'll definitely save money because public transportation is much cheaper than each gallon of gasoline that you must pump into your car to make it get you to work every day. It is a luxury to drive a car.

If you're not seeing the light yet, consider this: you'll be proactively saving your own life by not driving. The benefits here are multifaceted. Going green by taking public transportation saves gasoline and, therefore, carbon emissions, sure, but do you have any idea the ridiculous number of car accidents that occur each year? It's not a matter of whether or not you will be in an accident, it's a matter of when. A car accident can cost you your life, and in two different ways. Firstly, an accident can be perilous. Secondly, if you're at fault, then you may have committed a serious crime. Therefore, your life is, in a sense, comparably over. Accidents happen, sure, but why take the risk of being in one? A fender-bender is a lot of hassle... especially if someone is injured.

So do yourself and society a favor: take public transportation if/when you can. If you're in a bus and it gets rear-ended, you don't have to worry about being at fault. You can rest assured that all the problems associated with an accident rest with the drivers of the vehicle-i.e. not you.

Take the money you save on gasoline by not driving your own car, and get a Blackberry or an iPhone. Then, during your commute on public transportation, use the device to get work done! You can be very productive! It may get you out of the door earlier at the end of the day, and back home where you [hopefully] want to be. Help yourself take back your life and the planet at the same time. Kiss your long drives goodbye and know that you're saving money, saving the planet, and saving yourself.

*muah*

W00t! Let's Ruin English...

2007-12-12T01:43:00.000-05:00

I was just writing today on Tim's blog my true feelings about l337 speak and netspeak.

Well honestly, after stumbling upon "Merriam-Webster name w00t 2007 Word of the Year - English Teachers Weep," my compliment to society's word banks for keeping netspeak at bay, may just have to be revoked. I find it atrocious that, if letting the word "Woot" into the dictionary, it would be spelled with two zeros. Seriously? w00t?

Methinks not.

Associated Content, referring to l337 or "leet" speak, says "This new language, or jargon, was a way for social semi-outcasts to identify with each other and became the secret handshake of the new millenia." They call l337 speak the pig-latin of the typed, digital age.

Kevin Chen takes a more mild-mannered approach when he says, "The internet is, in one sense, a natural destruction and creation of modern language. It has developed its own lexicon, filled with a multitude of words and acronyms."

Kevin's approach is definitely the way most people look at it. I think those people who classify themselves as independents would prefer to assume this position. True, each age is filled with its influences that alter modern language, yet thinking to historical contexts, change in the English language has taken place relatively slowly over the past several hundred years, compared with the revolution that netspeak and the Internet of today are provoking.

Just because Webster's dictionary has decided to accept w00t as a word, doesn't suggest that other dictionaries will also accept the "word." Personally, I don't foresee the Oxford English Dictionary jumping on the "w00t" bandwagon, at least not with two zeros, any time soon.

"Fact or Crap?"

2007-12-10T00:33:00.000-05:00

This is a follow-up to my Nov. 16 post, "User Generated Flubb," in which I expressed skepticism toward the validity, verity, and usefulness of user generated content.

In scouring digg just now, I've come across several very interestingly-titled articles:

Is There Really Such a Thing as Time Travel? Creepy! watch!

Burger Kings's Condom Whopper Lands New Lawsuit

Huckabee called homosexuality "dangerous public health risk"

I am not suggesting that any of these articles are not fact-based, credible, and/or a benefit to society.
_____

In considering UGC as a whole, how much is our society benefited by its creation? I wouldn't say that it makes us smarter off... By reading digg rather than a non-fiction book, we end up learning a little about a lot, rather than the other way around. In my opinion, so long as you know a lot altogether and are able to use that knowledge, you're smart. Citizen journalism, micro-blogging, and social networking sites like digg, del.icio.us, and technorati impart on users information. In general, you're going to be informed, but not educated.

A lot of information is no good if there isn't any glue to hold together the pieces. Linking pieces of information together is what creates knowledge. Books link information and impart knowledge, hence my preference for them. However, perhaps the lack of knowledge is what excites readers of digg. The random bits of information are entertaining, and really not much thinking is involved because there's no need to remember anything that's read.

What baffles me is simply why so many people have such a fixation on collecting information in this fashion. I wish there was a way that they could do more than just learn a few facts in an article, but rather actually be smarter off afterwards for having read an article. When citizen journalism and UGC are guaranteed to impart knowledge and even wisdom, then I'll lose much of the skepticism that I have for it.

Ragu... I mean Razoo!

2007-11-29T00:17:00.000-05:00

In taking a peak at this article, PR Leap cites Razoo's stated mission as:

"To promote social good and to inspire others to get involved by making giving
and serving fun, easy, and meaningful."

Many people have seen the Ragu (yes, the pasta sauce) commercials. Didn't they try to promote the same type of thing? Inspiring people to get together to have fun with other meaningful people, and enjoy an easy meal by serving Ragu as an easy way to complete that meal. Sounds about right...

But, what's the real premise of Razoo (the social networking site this time)?

Razoo is trying to pioneer a new type of web 2.0 where visitors work together for a shared cause characterized as "good" in nature. It's the beginning of what Paul Lamb of CNET News calls, "Neighborhood social networking." Paul talks about these new sites as a way of learning about people in need, and then actually helping them, all on the go!

While initiatives like this always sound magnificent in theory, there are a few concerns I have:

1) Will enough people actually use it so that an older lady in an Idaho town who needs help, can actually receive the help from someone else located nearby?

2) People will abuse the system by either a) volunteering and never appearing, or b) subsequently stalking persons they help out.

From these concerns, word of mouth with thine friends sounds just a bit more promising, and safe. What's more, you're essentially soliciting anonymous helpers by inviting anyone who wants to help to contact you. Each site of this kind works differently, but I think an entire-address-book-mass-e-mail is a better idea.

User Generated Flubb

2007-11-16T23:48:00.000-05:00

Thanks, Derek Powazek, for putting the phrase User Generated Content (UGC) into some context for us:

"User: One who uses. Like, you know, a junkie.

Generated: Like a generator, engine. Like, you know, a robot.

Content: Something that fills a box. Like, you know, packing peanuts.

So what's user-generated content? Junkies robotically filling boxes with packing peanuts. Lovely."

Lovely, indeed! When you use Google, you expect that you'll be able to find anything you're looking for. What about all the useless, trashy pages that come up instead of what you really want?

Or, how about the home pages of people that ramble on about their opinions regarding any and everything, offering not even a link to something factual. Lee Odden mentions, however, that it's costly to ensure that UGC is actually relevant and useful. True, it's impossible to moderate what anyone posts, but it's becoming increasingly more difficult to filter out what is credible/factual from what is not.

Perhaps opinion is what you're looking for when you need the chemical formula for benzene, but is the mass amount of UGC being produced every day going to help us out further, or will it start getting in our way?

(It's C6H6, by the way - thanks Online Encyclopedia)

Facebook Changing Politics...?

2007-11-11T17:28:00.000-05:00

Is facebook going to revolutionize the face of politics in the United States?

I doubt it. All the side-bar facebook advertisements with politicians' faces on them in the world wouldn't sway me to vote one way or the other. For me, it's about fundamental beliefs and provocations...what their face looks like doesn't matter to me. I've long heard that the younger, college-age generation has the most power to sway elections. Why? Well, we can organize in mass to vote, we're more likely to want to vote because we believe it will make a difference, and our demographic has special voting habits (tendencies) that can exploit one party or the other.

In South Korea many politicians use Web 2.0 services, namely blogs, to help get their campaign and image out to the public. For that society, such a technique has a measurable impact. I believe that it's yet to be proven that political blogs have an impact here in the US.

As far as making other impacts goes, these two teens were able to raise several hundred thousand dollars for their campaign to support Darfur. Being invited to Capital Hill to speak definitely implies that your social networking efforts have had an impact on politics. However large or small, you've done something.

Web 2.0 efforts have the ability to revolution specific causes, and have an even greater chance of getting a huge outpouring of participation when the day comes when US citizens can vote in elections online. In my nine-thirty post, I discuss the pros and cons regarding online voting. It's something that I think the US should do. With current Web 2.0 technologies, a non-biased facebook ad encouraging me to vote would do a great job of reminding to perform my civic duty. By eliminating the need to physically travel someplace to vote, apathy will no longer be an excuse for political inactivism.

The Word "Gullible" is Written on the Ceiling

2007-11-09T01:37:00.000-05:00

So I found myself blog surfing, and came across a comment on someone's blog post that starts like this:
_____

hi,I am a Nigerian, I live in Osun state.Don't think for a minute that my invitation is spam and I'm a spammer.
_____

I'll let you make your own conclusions.

On a separate note...

I was reading through the US Postal Service's handbook on mail fraud a few weeks ago. A little light reading for the AU shuttle ride, nonetheless. Inside, I came across a few interesting topics.

First was the concept of unsolicited packages. Say for example, a package of cheese and sausage arrives at your doorstep. You definitely didn't order it, but it's got your name and address on it, as well as a bill attached requesting payment. Well, perhaps you feel some obligation to pay for this package, thinking you may have forgotten about ordering it, or something. My take on the law, per the USPS's handbook there, is that unsolicited packages are yours to keep, and not return, if you so choose. If you want nothing to do with it, then simply write "return to sender" on the outside and leave it for the post man. However, should you actually open the package with your name on it, and inside it tells you that you must pay for the package you just opened... then you're actually not obligated to pay for it. You can keep it. Obviously there are some caveats and restrictions that apply, but that's the general gist of it.

Unsolicited packages addressed to you are yours.

Next I got to the part about letter scams requesting help in foreign countries for a small fee. I wrote several months ago in The Nine-Thirty about scams similar to this, but in an online context:

"It's just like e-mails from fraudulent people trying to convince people to input their bank information in an online form to confirm that they're still patrons of a certain institution. Hundreds of examples like this exist. Yet, still, high-faluting lawyers, and even congressmen (I believe he was from Florida) get conned, and have their identities stolen."

Well, if you get one of these things, it may constitute an act of mail fraud. So what do you do? Well, you can turn it into the authorities, but I think most [non-gullible] people choose to open and read them, have their laugh, and then throw them away.

Whatever floats your boat.

The Eight-Thirty

2007-11-07T21:03:00.000-05:00

One could call it a title-downgrade from The Nine-Thirty, but The Eight-Thirty has a lot of interesting posts containing my opinions on numerous topics having to do with Social Networking and its interaction with Business. Business is quickly growing into a more online world, and social networking in that world is bringing business people together. Learn about it as well as find interesting commentary, links, and references to printed materials all having to do with social networking and business.

Also, if you have any interest in Mocial Networking (Mobile Social Networking) and all the really exciting, emerging technologies that it's beginning to feature, then check out this post at http://eight-thirty.blogspot.com/.

Just click!

Mocial Networking

2007-11-05T20:35:00.000-05:00

It's Social Networking on steroids. The latest wave of technological advancements involves taking social networks mobile. I was very excited when I coined the term Mocial Networking (Mobile Social Networking), until I discovered this website where someone seems to have coined it before me. There's also another site that has adopted the word "mocial."

I'll elaborate on my understanding of mocial networking, as I've defined it. Mocial networking is web 2.0 but on an extremely mobile platform. The best way to engage in mocial networking is to have a GPS-enabled cell phone. With that, you can use sites like Kakiloc, Trackut, Socialight, Fring, and Bliin. Altogether, these sites allow you to place geo-specific digital sticky notes with text and pictures that provide information or opinions about specific locations, and are permanent to the specific location from which the user uploaded it. Also, these sites allow friends of yours to track you in real-time as you travel anywhere in the world.

People you designate as your friends can receive permissions to track your whereabouts at all times using Google Maps. The sites mentioned above can even tell your friends the speed and direction you're traveling, as well as where you're going if you designate your destination ahead of time. Of course, you do have control at all times over who you want to see what...

This is very awesome technology, however there are concerns about people abusing it. For example, tracking gullible minors (or even adults) for purposes of abduction.

Regardless, Stef Kolman from Bliin says that the risks associated with mocial networking aren't any greater than with traditional social networking (1.0/2.0) methods.

What do you guys think? How likely are people to abuse this new, exciting technology?

SPAM - Part 2

2007-11-04T19:08:00.000-05:00

About a month ago I wrote a post highlighting how much I dislike receiving spam, and how large a problem spam really is. If you have 2 minutes 4 seconds, then watch this video that Google's spam-czars put together. It highlights ways that Google software engineers are able to filter out so much spam. From the chart on the original blog post, it looks like 67% of the e-mail that enters Google's servers is spam. But, look at how improving the Google spam-fighting algorithm has paid off over time! Hardly any spam actually makes it through the filter any more.

'Not'working

2007-11-02T13:27:00.000-04:00

In reading the short post here, I was surprised to view this recruiting ad for Yahoo on Craigslist. Many companies, especially in India, recruit a substantial portion of their new hires through internal networking means. This means that current employees of the company, will refer someone they know as a candidate for a job at that company.

I would think that an online empire like Yahoo would have the social networking skills and connections to recruit recently graduate college students for hire. People have friends, but Yahoo has Craigslist. I don't think this makes Yahoo look very good. In a sense, online marketing for hires like this is good thinking, but in my opinion, it's not good enough. A nice little "I'm for Sale" tag goes up in my mind on anything that I see on Craigslist. Yahoo is simply saying, "we're too socially inept that we can't think of any better way to recruit hires than on Craigslist." How's about putting the recruitment ad on... YAHOO?? Perhaps on the Yahoo careers page?

This site talks about one's blog as fulfilling the role of their new resume. Your blog represents you. Well, I'd like to relate this back to the Yahoo faux-pas mentioned above. Job postings, in my eyes, are, as the blog reads, "serious business," "represent[ative] of you [i.e. Yahoo]," and "the unedited version of yourself." So, then, is Yahoo's recruiting techniques to say "we're cheap, not serious, and unoriginal?" It certainly appears this way. This reminds me of when an Army recruiting ad accidentally appeared on a gay social networking site.

I believe that how an organization recruits is reflective of the company's nature, style, and operation. What I am suggesting in this post is that my professional opinion of Yahoo has lessened slightly.

I Don't Want to Show ME Off

2007-10-28T17:09:00.000-04:00

This week's reading was about professional networking. I read a few articles that talk about networking, professionally, via online means. See, it's one thing for me to hand out a copy of my resume to prospective employers, or to e-mail a copy to someone with whom I'm trying to network. Posting it for everyone to see is entirely different. While it's less effort for me because I don't have to send my resume to individual people, it's also much more revealing of myself. It's trading laziness for security.

I'm very stingy with my facebook profile, for it does not reveal my address, phone number, or other personal information at any time. Even the little amount it does reveal, I am able to control who sees. The header of my resume contains my phone number and address. If I'm so stingy with my facebook profile, what are the chances that I'll be in a hurry to post my resume? Very small.

Do I want people to be able to google me? Realistically, no. It would be a little too invasive of my privacy. It's nice to be able to have an online persona that is recognizable and easily findable, but at what price? In my opinion, the price is too high. As a humungous fan of face-to-face interaction, I would rather use other peoples' online information to track them down, to have a face-to-face conversation with them. I have no problem connecting and interacting with people online, it's actually the people that I don't want to interact with, who I'll ultimately end up interacting with because they've tracked me down, that keep me from publishing a back-door to my life on the internet (sometimes literally).

Everything I see says that networking is the most important thing that you can do. I think that becoming the most dedicated, educated, and hard-working person will be enough to set you apart from everyone else. Having a niche that makes you so special will have employers either seeking you, or refusing to turn down employment to you. I plan to have a very specialized career track where I know exactly where I fit, and where there will always be room.

Social Networking on Steroids, Speed, and X

2007-10-18T23:04:00.000-04:00

Yes, you read that correctly.

Take 21 seconds to read point #6 of "Working Together...When Apart."

I am the Project Manager for Kogod's class KSB-252: Washington Initiative [Instructor: Allison Holcomb]. The goal of the class is to execute an AU-wide marketing initiative surrounding the Help the Homeless Walkathon, which is sponsored by Fannie Mae and takes place on the National Mall on November 17th.

Our team of 8 meets once weekly, and as such it is my responsibility to make sure that everyone is doing their jobs outside of the meetings. Each member of my team has a lot to do, and my job is essentially 8-fold in trying to keep up with it all. I require my team members to produce finite results for every meeting, and as such I am able to keep them accountable to the group.

I also take ITEC-200 with Professor Melander. You'd better believe that there's a wiki page for that course too. Blackboard, in my opinion, is not the best tool for keeping a class organized. This is why I commend Professor Melander so much for using the wiki pages. I had no idea the things that were possible with wiki's. Likewise, the blog for Brendan Monaghan, our guest speaker two classes ago, featured an awesome video about making a wiki page for a team or an event. My team needs to be able to edit documents together, and collaborate on our project. The above sources [i.e. Professor Melander] inspired me to make a wiki for my team. So, I created ksb252.wetpaint.com. Wetpaint is another site that hosts wiki's, although it does have advertising.

My team members have been responsible for editing several pages, and making noticeable contributions each week in preparation for meetings and events. As a result, our team is very connected, both in and out of the boardroom (we meet in the Kogod boardroom). Our client is very happy with our presentation, and our team is able to get things done in a no-excuse [online] environment that I feel promotes punctuality and cooperation.

So, when I read point #6 above, it made me very excited because for my e-connected team, this is something that I had actually done. And, I was able to related to the article instead of taking it with a grain of salt and much skepticism.

Thank you, Professor.

Stalker

2007-10-10T23:21:00.000-04:00

First, let me be very candid in saying, "There are a lot of sick people out there."

Now, if a long lost friend of mine wants to find me, they're more than welcome to search for me on facebook, and send me a message to see if it's me. They wouldn't be able to see any of the very little information in my profile unless I accept their friend request. And that, is not guaranteed to happen.

If a stalker wanted to find out more information about me, they could also search for me on facebook. What would they get? A picture of my head that's about 10 pixels wide. That's about it. I'm very restrictive with the information that I put up online, because I never know who's looking at it. Even with Google Analytics which lets me see where the people that view my blog are from, doesn't tell me who, exactly, they are. Anyone could be snooping... even a prospective employer.

In this way I feel that I have a good balance. People who know me can find me and contact me before finding out more info. People I don't know, don't get any info, but still have the opportunity to message me if they feel so inclined. As I build my life online, including website with that catacomb my work over the years, both professional and collegiate, I want to be able to control who sees and uses it. I feel that someone checking me out online, is practically the same thing as if they were looking through my window at me. It's just as creepy when you find out someone's there, because you don't know what they've seen, or how they've interpreted what they have seen. The online world is a fun and magnificent place, but it can get very scary, very fast when "a motivated person," as Lenhart and Madden describe, hunts you down. These two authors tell us that 63% of teens with online profiles think they could be found. Imagine how many are in denial... imagine how many actually can be found. It's a daunting thought.

http://www.pewinternet.org/report_display.asp?r=211 - "Teens, Privacy and Online Social Networks: How teens manage their online identities and personal information in the age of MySpace."

SPAM

2007-10-07T23:07:00.000-04:00

No, not the faux-meat. As much as I don't like SPAM the faux-meat, I dislike e-spam even more. Hearing from the CTO (Chief Technology Officer) of AU last year, 95% of the e-mail that comes through AU's servers is spam. I'd say 95% of the e-mail I receive in Gmail is spam too... thank goodness for the spam filter! I believe that spam has become a great detriment to the system of e-mail, because in some cases, it simply cannot be controlled.

Howard Rheingold, in "Smart Mobs" (See Below), talks about having signed up for a text message service in which members of specific groups could send mass text messages via cell phones to other members in their group, all at once. The groups had specific purposes, like celebrity sightings in NYC, or terrorist attacks, pop-star fans, etc. After reading about this kind of service, in my mind I immediately dismissed it as almost entirely pointless. If you ask me, someone who is a real jerk is bound to sign up for the service and spam everyone's phone with useless messages that either contain false content or don't at all relate to the group. If your cell phone plan does not afford you unlimited text messages, then your monthly bill is going to be huge, in addition to the separate monthly bill for just belonging to the groups service. Talk about a waste of money!

Rheingold mentions (on page 167) that he joined a group of a Lil' BowWow fans. He says he received a text from "a fifteen-year-old lil bowwow fan in Brooklyn [that] just got out of school." Honestly, who gives even the slightest hoot? Rheingold also mentions that he had to switch over to receiving e-mails rather than text messages, which most likely was because of the quantity or [lack of] quality of the content he was receiving. Talk about a waste of time and technology.

If, in the case of the terrorism group, you only receive one text message every three months regarding a very widespread (and not isolated) incident that may actually impact your life, then I can see this system being useful. Otherwise, I don't see the point in wasting my time and money on a service that will, in my opinion, make me dumber for using it.

"Smart Mobs" by Howard Rheingold: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780738208619&itm=1. His personal page: http://www.rheingold.com/.