http://twitter.com/UtahGov
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/2008-09-25-twitter-utah-government_N.htm
Perhaps I'm behind the times, but I don't really understand the appeal of Twitter, which is a page of mini-blog posts about any subject, none of which are much longer than a sentence.
I appreciate the pros of Twitter: it's easy to use, quick to post to, easy to catch up on, and with some programs, now even searchable. It is, however, very informal and very brief, and if there is anything listed in the "tweets" that I'd like to know about, I then have to go research it on my own. I would rather that the blogs be a paragraph long and tell me the basics of what I need to know, rather than a headline and a url.
Of course, this could be my personal bias. I have also blogged about disliking touchscreen phones and Google Chrome, even though I really don't have anything against them (I believe that once my work day is over, I'm too grouchy to appreciate up-and-coming technology). It seems that I'm one of few who aren't big Twitter fans, since the state government of Utah is now using Twitter to stay in touch with residents.
While I appreciate that the government there is staying up to date with technology, the following paragraph confused me a little:
"But when lawmakers convene for a special session Thursday to cut $272 million from the state budget, the first word on what happens will just as likely come from a Tweet, what the short messages are called, as it will from traditional media or blogs. With Twitter, an update takes only as long to post as it does to send a text message."
I know that this says "the first word" and not "the only word," but $272 million is a substantial amount of money, and I think I'd be worried to hear, "we cut $150 million. Details later." Personally, I'd rather wait.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Facebook reveals narcissism!
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10052216-36.html
Researchers at the University of Georgia have uncovered a shocking fact: technology-savvy people who think very well of themselves use the Facebook social networking website to self-promote, ending up with hundreds of "friends," status reports updated several times a day, and lots of photos of themselves. This research will be published in October's issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin academic journal.
Narcissism is a psychological disorder in which a person thinks so excessively highly of themselves that they put themselves first in everything to the point of alienating others (the article here calls is "excessive egotism"). The study also states that those with the disorder at first may seem to be very confident and well-composed, but it soon shows through that they're far more than that, and narcissists tend to end up hurting others in order to further their own goals.
This is the biggest news since it was announced that the sky was blue!
It surprises me that this research was funded and supported by UG. It also makes me a little sad... there are so many things out there that need attention... there's no cure for cancer, but now there's documented evidence that narcissism can be seen on Facebook? Anyone who has used facebook a bit could have told the researchers that and saved them the trouble.
This is not to say that anyone with a Facebook page is narcissistic, but... here's a scenario. Now that Facebook has a feed that shows you who on your friends list has done what lately, when you sign on, a page pops up that lists various goings on. This is wonderful for keeping in touch with those friends you rarely see, but when the entire list consists of "Bob is taking a shower! Bob is out of the shower! Bob is going to class! Bob has posted 37 new photos!"... it gets old. In this case, Bob is a narcissist, and it's no surprise to anyone. Sorry, UG.
The most humerous part of the blog I linked to with this article is the comment that someone posted underneath, calling the study "completely false and untrue." It seems that the commenter didn't realize that the study said that Facebook helped to identify narcissists, not that anyone with a Facebook page was one.
Researchers at the University of Georgia have uncovered a shocking fact: technology-savvy people who think very well of themselves use the Facebook social networking website to self-promote, ending up with hundreds of "friends," status reports updated several times a day, and lots of photos of themselves. This research will be published in October's issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin academic journal.
Narcissism is a psychological disorder in which a person thinks so excessively highly of themselves that they put themselves first in everything to the point of alienating others (the article here calls is "excessive egotism"). The study also states that those with the disorder at first may seem to be very confident and well-composed, but it soon shows through that they're far more than that, and narcissists tend to end up hurting others in order to further their own goals.
This is the biggest news since it was announced that the sky was blue!
It surprises me that this research was funded and supported by UG. It also makes me a little sad... there are so many things out there that need attention... there's no cure for cancer, but now there's documented evidence that narcissism can be seen on Facebook? Anyone who has used facebook a bit could have told the researchers that and saved them the trouble.
This is not to say that anyone with a Facebook page is narcissistic, but... here's a scenario. Now that Facebook has a feed that shows you who on your friends list has done what lately, when you sign on, a page pops up that lists various goings on. This is wonderful for keeping in touch with those friends you rarely see, but when the entire list consists of "Bob is taking a shower! Bob is out of the shower! Bob is going to class! Bob has posted 37 new photos!"... it gets old. In this case, Bob is a narcissist, and it's no surprise to anyone. Sorry, UG.
The most humerous part of the blog I linked to with this article is the comment that someone posted underneath, calling the study "completely false and untrue." It seems that the commenter didn't realize that the study said that Facebook helped to identify narcissists, not that anyone with a Facebook page was one.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Technology features I do not understand
In the interest of being able to make my cousins think I'm cool, I've been attempting to stay current with the latest technology trends. It's easy enough to read about a new feature of something and say, "oh, that sounds great!" but I find it less great when the exciting new things your phone can do actually come into play.
Lots of devices now - iPhones, cell phones, mp3 players - are coming equipped with touch screens (Camera phones are apparently no longer en vogue, which is too bad, since I just finally got one). Generally, this means that you no longer have to spend the energy to push those pesky 1/8" deep buttons. According to some people I've spoken to, this is the best thing ever created on earth, better even than fire, sliced bread, and jelly doughnuts. Sadly, I don't see the thrill. Let's say that I have a new touch-screen cell phone, and I shove it in my pocket on my way out the door. Now, I've had non-touch-screen phones randomly call the first person in my address book (my friend Anthony) because their buttons have been pressed when the phone was in a bag with bulky things on top of it, or in a pocket where my jeans mashed the keys when I sat down (ths is why I now have a flip phone - to spare poor Anthony the phone calls of dead air or jingling keys). I dear this would happen with alarming frequency with a touch-screen cell phone. Let's say that I put said phone in my pocket after hanging up with talking to my sister. If the friction in my pocket hits the send key on the touch screen and calls her back, she may hear, "jeez, I never thought I'd get off the phone! Yak, yak, yak." And then she'd never talk to me again. Or perhaps it would call someone while in my bag... can you imagine hearing, "hello? HELLO?!" in a quiet movie theater? I have a friend who was once listening so intently to her voicemail, phone balenced between shoulder and ear while she copied down a phone number, that the touchscreen registered "delete" and the message that was so important was lost forever. I think I'll pass on that feature.
Also new is the trend to make things be able to be controlled with movement, as demonstrated with the Nintendo Wii controller. While fun for a game, this technology is now available in the new line of iPods - shake them, and your songs will shuffle! Fantastic, if you listen while sitting still. Forget about using them on a bus, while climbing stairs, or while working out.
The point is: Newer isn't necessarily better. Just because you can have an animated GIF of a sparkly toad dancing on your website doesn't mean you should. Not all things need touchscreens. And we, as a nation of consumers, need to stop glomming onto the hot new trend, since it may not be so wonderful after all.
Lots of devices now - iPhones, cell phones, mp3 players - are coming equipped with touch screens (Camera phones are apparently no longer en vogue, which is too bad, since I just finally got one). Generally, this means that you no longer have to spend the energy to push those pesky 1/8" deep buttons. According to some people I've spoken to, this is the best thing ever created on earth, better even than fire, sliced bread, and jelly doughnuts. Sadly, I don't see the thrill. Let's say that I have a new touch-screen cell phone, and I shove it in my pocket on my way out the door. Now, I've had non-touch-screen phones randomly call the first person in my address book (my friend Anthony) because their buttons have been pressed when the phone was in a bag with bulky things on top of it, or in a pocket where my jeans mashed the keys when I sat down (ths is why I now have a flip phone - to spare poor Anthony the phone calls of dead air or jingling keys). I dear this would happen with alarming frequency with a touch-screen cell phone. Let's say that I put said phone in my pocket after hanging up with talking to my sister. If the friction in my pocket hits the send key on the touch screen and calls her back, she may hear, "jeez, I never thought I'd get off the phone! Yak, yak, yak." And then she'd never talk to me again. Or perhaps it would call someone while in my bag... can you imagine hearing, "hello? HELLO?!" in a quiet movie theater? I have a friend who was once listening so intently to her voicemail, phone balenced between shoulder and ear while she copied down a phone number, that the touchscreen registered "delete" and the message that was so important was lost forever. I think I'll pass on that feature.
Also new is the trend to make things be able to be controlled with movement, as demonstrated with the Nintendo Wii controller. While fun for a game, this technology is now available in the new line of iPods - shake them, and your songs will shuffle! Fantastic, if you listen while sitting still. Forget about using them on a bus, while climbing stairs, or while working out.
The point is: Newer isn't necessarily better. Just because you can have an animated GIF of a sparkly toad dancing on your website doesn't mean you should. Not all things need touchscreens. And we, as a nation of consumers, need to stop glomming onto the hot new trend, since it may not be so wonderful after all.
Google Chrome
If you're like me, living with a programmer, you've heard nothing but excitement about the new Google Chrome browser that came out last week (and was immediately downloaded and installed as the default browser on all 3 home computers). I, not being a technologist, decided to give it a try, while remaining cautiously optimistic.
Google itself says the following: "We realized that the Web had evolved from mainly simple text pages to rich, interactive applications, and that we needed to completely rethink the browser. What we really needed was not just a browser, but also a modern platform for Web pages and applications, and that's what we set out to build." Now, call me naive, but wasn't that half the point of Mozilla Firefox? This statement also pokes at me for a reason that I find hard to name. I think it's because, on the whole, I am not looking for yet another application that does magic tricks, but something useful. A tool. That's what technology is at its core: the use of tools to accomplish something more efficiently than you would be able to without it. And yes, this is a wonderful research tool... but I fail to see what makes it better than other browsers. Except, of course, that it bears the Google logo, and comes with its own comic strip.
While I appreciate the ground-up approach that Google has taken in creating Chrome, the application, from my standpoint, is pretty much the same as Firefox or the new IE or Safari. I'm proficient in technology, as much as one can be without knowing any programming languages (I've been told that HTML, as a markup language, doesn't count). I surf the web, I check my email constantly, I play an MMORPG, I can hook up and sometimes even troubleshoot a CPU. And it doesn't look very much different to me than the other browsers. I don't really have a problem with the look of it... I understand that aesthetics play a large part in usability when it comes to the common computer user. But there are so many browsers out there already. Why do we need another one?
What makes me think is this: Since I've known the aforementioned programmer, all I've ever heard about Microsoft is that it's a large, evil, monopolistic corporation with no soul, mostly because the company has a tendency to market anything and everything with the MS name and logo on it. But, look around any programmer's office, and you'll see half a dozen items emblazoned with "Google" or "I'm Feeling Lucky!". The two corporations may market themselves in different ways, but the names are equally (or almost as) well-known to the general computer-using public. The difference, I am told, is that Google's products work well, and the people who create them take pride in what they do (apparently Mr. Gates has never ever cared, and just happened to be in the right place at the right time?). Such is the trust that people place in this corporation that they will uproot their own beliefs (this is a guy who started a university-wide campaign to get Mozilla Firefox into the computer labs at Rutgers) and follow the pack to throw away MF and install Chrome, as the default browser, within hours of its release. Google is king! Google is wonderful! Chrome forever!
To this, I feel I must remind the programmers of the world... that's how Microsoft started out, too.
Google itself says the following: "We realized that the Web had evolved from mainly simple text pages to rich, interactive applications, and that we needed to completely rethink the browser. What we really needed was not just a browser, but also a modern platform for Web pages and applications, and that's what we set out to build." Now, call me naive, but wasn't that half the point of Mozilla Firefox? This statement also pokes at me for a reason that I find hard to name. I think it's because, on the whole, I am not looking for yet another application that does magic tricks, but something useful. A tool. That's what technology is at its core: the use of tools to accomplish something more efficiently than you would be able to without it. And yes, this is a wonderful research tool... but I fail to see what makes it better than other browsers. Except, of course, that it bears the Google logo, and comes with its own comic strip.
While I appreciate the ground-up approach that Google has taken in creating Chrome, the application, from my standpoint, is pretty much the same as Firefox or the new IE or Safari. I'm proficient in technology, as much as one can be without knowing any programming languages (I've been told that HTML, as a markup language, doesn't count). I surf the web, I check my email constantly, I play an MMORPG, I can hook up and sometimes even troubleshoot a CPU. And it doesn't look very much different to me than the other browsers. I don't really have a problem with the look of it... I understand that aesthetics play a large part in usability when it comes to the common computer user. But there are so many browsers out there already. Why do we need another one?
What makes me think is this: Since I've known the aforementioned programmer, all I've ever heard about Microsoft is that it's a large, evil, monopolistic corporation with no soul, mostly because the company has a tendency to market anything and everything with the MS name and logo on it. But, look around any programmer's office, and you'll see half a dozen items emblazoned with "Google" or "I'm Feeling Lucky!". The two corporations may market themselves in different ways, but the names are equally (or almost as) well-known to the general computer-using public. The difference, I am told, is that Google's products work well, and the people who create them take pride in what they do (apparently Mr. Gates has never ever cared, and just happened to be in the right place at the right time?). Such is the trust that people place in this corporation that they will uproot their own beliefs (this is a guy who started a university-wide campaign to get Mozilla Firefox into the computer labs at Rutgers) and follow the pack to throw away MF and install Chrome, as the default browser, within hours of its release. Google is king! Google is wonderful! Chrome forever!
To this, I feel I must remind the programmers of the world... that's how Microsoft started out, too.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
What's the deal with this commercial?
Seeing as this is the first blog entry of the Fall 2008 semester, I've decided that it doesn't especially matter what I write about, as long as the blog has been created and I write two more entries this week, so... for lack of a better topic, I'm going to write about the new Microsoft Bill Gates/Jerry Seinfeld ad that everyone's talking about.
I watched the ad. And, call me dense, but I don't get it. If you haven't seen it, here's what happens: Seinfeld sees Gates buying shoes at a discount store where the salesman is not actually doing much in the way of helping. Seinfeld enters the store, churro in hand, and takes over, helping Gates to buy new shoes, and tells his new buddy to shower in his shoes, so they get clean when he does (cut to pair of shoe-clad feet, presumably Seinfeld's, in the shower). People watching through the window of the store proclaim that the shoes Gates is trying on do, in fact, run tightly, as Seinfeld had said. For some reason, they do this in another language (Spanish, I believe), with subtitles. Satisfied, Gates heads to the counter to purchase his new footwear and proclaims he's a Platinum Member of the Shoe Circus Clown Club (he also shows a Shoe Circus Member Card, complete with very old and very geeky photo). The new friends walk out through the parking lot, now both eating churros, where Seinfeld asks if Microsoft will ever make a computer that's "moist and chewy, like cake, so we can eat them while we're working." He asks for a sign that it's going to happen, and Gates gives him a signal - he shakes his tush. End of commercial.
Now. There are so many things about this commercial that I don't understand. For one thing, why is Gates buying shoes at the same discount store he's been using since he was a teenager? Especially if his shoes were always too tight and the salesman didn't listen to what the customer was saying. There's a point when you have to say, "I have more money than god, and I want shoes that fit correctly!" Or how about even, "it doesn't matter whether or not I have money, I deserve to be treated with respect as a customer of this establishment"? Is this commercial telling me that Gates is so out of touch that he not only doesn't bring the best goods to the rich consumer, but that he doesn't know how to give any single person anything they want?
And why are the gawkers speaking Spanish? Is this supposed to tell me that Hispanic mall-goers are big fans of Microsoft? Is that why they're each eating a churro at the end? Come to think of it, why are the gawkers there at all? And why are they more impressed with Seinfeld's knowledge of the discount brand of shoe than the fact that he's helping Gates try them on?
And then there's the random nonsense about taking a shower with shoes on. I can just see the marketing geniuses at work here: "Let's throw something in that makes no sense at all! Like Seinfeld makes a joke about showering with shoes on - priceless!" Did they not realize that they're making the head of their company seem less knowledgable in general than a man who does something so ridiculous?
So after all that, they walk out to the parking lot, each eating churros. But... at the beginning of the commercial, Gates politely declined a churro when offered. Has Seinfeld's shoe knowledge, as it were, affected him to such a point that he is also taking pastry advice? And does that mean that there actually will be a computer that's moist and chewy like cake? I can't figure what that would be a metaphor for, so I'm forced to take it at face value - edible computers. I can just see it now: a proud parent has scrimped and saved to get the latest MS Muffin for her child. The hyper-expensive computer is left under the christmas tree only for a moment, but a moment is all that is needed for the dog to swoop in and chew the thing until all it does is play a repeating stream of Dexy's Midnight Runners at full blast.
Perhaps I exaggerate. But if anyone can make any more sense out of this commercial than that, I'd love to hear it.
I watched the ad. And, call me dense, but I don't get it. If you haven't seen it, here's what happens: Seinfeld sees Gates buying shoes at a discount store where the salesman is not actually doing much in the way of helping. Seinfeld enters the store, churro in hand, and takes over, helping Gates to buy new shoes, and tells his new buddy to shower in his shoes, so they get clean when he does (cut to pair of shoe-clad feet, presumably Seinfeld's, in the shower). People watching through the window of the store proclaim that the shoes Gates is trying on do, in fact, run tightly, as Seinfeld had said. For some reason, they do this in another language (Spanish, I believe), with subtitles. Satisfied, Gates heads to the counter to purchase his new footwear and proclaims he's a Platinum Member of the Shoe Circus Clown Club (he also shows a Shoe Circus Member Card, complete with very old and very geeky photo). The new friends walk out through the parking lot, now both eating churros, where Seinfeld asks if Microsoft will ever make a computer that's "moist and chewy, like cake, so we can eat them while we're working." He asks for a sign that it's going to happen, and Gates gives him a signal - he shakes his tush. End of commercial.
Now. There are so many things about this commercial that I don't understand. For one thing, why is Gates buying shoes at the same discount store he's been using since he was a teenager? Especially if his shoes were always too tight and the salesman didn't listen to what the customer was saying. There's a point when you have to say, "I have more money than god, and I want shoes that fit correctly!" Or how about even, "it doesn't matter whether or not I have money, I deserve to be treated with respect as a customer of this establishment"? Is this commercial telling me that Gates is so out of touch that he not only doesn't bring the best goods to the rich consumer, but that he doesn't know how to give any single person anything they want?
And why are the gawkers speaking Spanish? Is this supposed to tell me that Hispanic mall-goers are big fans of Microsoft? Is that why they're each eating a churro at the end? Come to think of it, why are the gawkers there at all? And why are they more impressed with Seinfeld's knowledge of the discount brand of shoe than the fact that he's helping Gates try them on?
And then there's the random nonsense about taking a shower with shoes on. I can just see the marketing geniuses at work here: "Let's throw something in that makes no sense at all! Like Seinfeld makes a joke about showering with shoes on - priceless!" Did they not realize that they're making the head of their company seem less knowledgable in general than a man who does something so ridiculous?
So after all that, they walk out to the parking lot, each eating churros. But... at the beginning of the commercial, Gates politely declined a churro when offered. Has Seinfeld's shoe knowledge, as it were, affected him to such a point that he is also taking pastry advice? And does that mean that there actually will be a computer that's moist and chewy like cake? I can't figure what that would be a metaphor for, so I'm forced to take it at face value - edible computers. I can just see it now: a proud parent has scrimped and saved to get the latest MS Muffin for her child. The hyper-expensive computer is left under the christmas tree only for a moment, but a moment is all that is needed for the dog to swoop in and chew the thing until all it does is play a repeating stream of Dexy's Midnight Runners at full blast.
Perhaps I exaggerate. But if anyone can make any more sense out of this commercial than that, I'd love to hear it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)