incipit vita nova

Best Post of Day

Best post of day comes from Man in the Gray Flannel Suit: Steve Jobs haters should STFU for a while and stop "flinging your mental boogers all over the internet."

I can't say how funny this is or how cool this blog is, although it does have a 70s taint (brrr!) - like vintage psycho Fleetwood Mac covers, Doors retrospectives, etc. He's got lots of other memorabilia and types of music too.

Maybe, Chris suggests, 

you should consider not acting like a jackass for a few days by trying to impress everyone over what a radical free thinker you are. I’m sorry if reading paeans to Jobs’ life and legacy makes you feel insignificant . . .

Then he includes the mental boogers comment. Priceless.

Save Money: Recycle

I read two articles this morning that were presented as new, current news, and one yesterday of the same nature. Two were actually from 2009, and the one yesterday was from before the 2008 presidential election.

MainSt: 25 Endangered Professions (December 2009) - linked to as "fresh" by RealClearPolitics.

TheLadders: 10 Things Your Career Counselor Isn't Telling You (June 2009) - featured as "fresh" in TheLadders newsletter. Two days ago, TheLadders announced it was no longer limiting itself to $100K and up jobs and jobseekers. Gee, I wonder why? However, the article is very good, if a bit self-help crazy. It recommends very smart things for personal decisionmaking and growth. As the 12-hour per day person right now, I appreciated reading this article (building business).

Matt Drudge: NY Times article (March 2007) regarding pre-election investment practices of now-President Obama. Totally ignored prior to 2008 election, so I guess this one is a Drudge "Told Ya So."

I'm thinking like the 25 disappearing jobs list, this is all about recycling. Why make new content when you can just recycle old?

 

 

I Have Something To Say About the Internet

I saw this sad post from TechCrunch to the lengthy effect that Michael Arrington might be ejected from his role at the blog empire. Happy happy TechCrunch employees are pictured.

This is the guy who wrote it:

MG Siegler has been writing for TechCrunch since 2009. He covers the web, mobile, social, big companies, small companies, essentially everything. And Apple. A lot. Prior to TechCrunch, he covered various technology beats for VentureBeat. Originally from Ohio, MG attended the University of Michigan. He’s previously lived in Los Angeles where he worked in Hollywood and in San Diego where... 

* * * *

MG . . . MG . . . Maaaaaxxxxx

* * * *

It's this really long post about how AOL is screwing up TechCrunch by ejecting their leader, Michael Arrington. TechCrunch was bought by AOL 11 months ago, you see - and Ariana Huffington has something to do with it, so you know it's bad.

This post made me wish that Michael Arrington would get fired, and hope he already was. It made me sorry that I'm pretty sure MG gets paid to do this type of thing. 

THE INTERNET HAS PARTS THAT ARE SOOOOOOO UNPROFESSIONAL - The techier the community, the less-professional pretty much everything is, except the graphics in some places.

It's like the Sci Fi Convention crowd in 1936. Only big. So many. Loud.

* * * * * * * *

THEY THINK THE INTERNET IS FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    

If this is so, Google "Craig Peyer CHP Killer" and try to find a picture of the CHP killer from the 1980s in his CHP uniform. There are only a couple of hazy parole board photos, if that. Put "Craig Peyer CHP Killer" in YouTube (owned by Google - you knew that, right?). It will show you the video memorial for the young woman Peyer murdered, Cara Knott, and the oak grove planted in Cara's honor and in honor of other crime victims. I know other videos existed - news reports, and even a few of Craig Peyer as the CHP TV traffic officer at the time. 

But the words "Craig Peyer CHP Killer" literally change. His name is crossed out, and so is "Killer" and in its place appears "CHP Killed" and videos of news stories and tributes to good officers who lost their lives in the line of duty appear.

I believe the CHP somehow removed as much trace as possible from the internet of Craig Peyer, the former disgraced CHP officer who is imprisoned for the 1986 murder of Cara Knott off Highway 15 on the way to San Diego.

Why was I looking for this? Well, about three years before, that guy had pulled me over too - same spot. He just didn't kill me. Later on, he killed Cara.

Just in case you thought there was something "fair," "reliable" or "trustworthy" about the Internet. Anything like that.

200,000 Visits Today!

200,000 visits to this blog as of this evening - in 2 years of sitemeter - not bad! It's my fault for the horrible cosmetic surgery blogs, Halloween pet pictures and . . . well gee - I guess Deadliest Warrior and so-on. Freelance fulltime ba-bay. Contact me via Elance . . . Off to Whidbey Island this weekend, mega congrats Debbie and Beau, the beautiful couple. I am SO honored.

Google Changes Algorithm to "Strengthen Web Ecosystem"

I noticed some strange reductions in my web traffic starting on Thursday morning.  The small changes I noticed are adding up to big changes for large websites like the Huffington Post.  Google's own blog describes the major changes they've made and the reasons behind them.

Specifically, the new algorithm/s are designed to "reduce rankings for low-quality sites—sites which are low-value add for users, copy content from other websites or sites that are just not very useful."

I have to point up some web language - for example "low-value add".  I think this means "worthless" or "of little worth or use."  

Even though I had a small amount less traffic for a couple of days, it sounds to me like the algorithm improvements are overall a positive.  Check out their rationale:

Google depends on the high-quality content created by wonderful websites around the world, and we do have a responsibility to encourage a healthy web ecosystem. Therefore, it is important for high-quality sites to be rewarded, and that’s exactly what this change does.

I think this means that they worked to produce more of the type of results Bing advertises (in those uncomfortable ads - like the Vampire "let's go to dinner" ad - ugh!). I phrased that carefully - because Bing doesn't do what the commercials say.  Bing just gives poor results either aimed at the lowest common denominator, or yes - results that look suspiciously like exclusive paid placement. I think the joke's over, but someone advised typing "Bing" into Google's search engine.  Here's my favorite result:

Notably, the algorithm change seems to have impacted Demand Media - and other junky content aggregating sites.

From a teaching perspective this is also good news.  Students can easily get poor information from content aggregators like "Suite101" and Associated Content.  The problem with sites like this is that they are like an internet game of info-"telephone."  They are written by free slave labor for the most part, and "you get what you pay for."  When poorly-prepared writers are cutting-and-pasting from others' original work, it can produce a lot of the confused, misinformed articles found on content aggregating sites. In certain topics, Wikipedia is bad enough (it's hard to imagine which topics aren't poor - I guess I've seen some strong European history topics and I like the city/county/state-related topics for basic information).  

Reportedly, Google's new algorithm is not downgrading the search results for sites with page ranks of 4-8 (this one-person blog has been PR 4 for a couple of years now).  As to Wikipedia often showing as the top search result for various people's names, well . . . who knows what's up with that?  Onward and upward with the new, healthier web ecosystem.  Another excellent article from Number Crunchers about which sites lost search rankings . . . very complete.  Looks like it whaled on Technorati, too - a site I've "low-value add" for some time.

Teacher Natalie Munroe: Right or Wrong?

Philadelphia-area teacher Natalie Munroe has been in the news lately for blogging about her students.  Her BLOGSPOT (LOL! OF COURSE!) blog was down for a time and is now back up, featuring her comments about the situation as of Saturday 2-12-11.

She apparently wrote joking posts over a year ago that gave what she describes today as "fake" or humorous commentary for teachers to select on report cards.  I have a tiny article cut from a magazine that students gave me some years ago which purports to list the top 10 funny comments from teachers on student report cards.  One is "Your student has reached rock bottom and continues to dig."  I sometimes read this to students for humorous purposes, making it clear that I don't support teachers making that type of comment, but giving them a few laughs. Perhaps Natalie Munroe's list was similar to this list.  Since it's no longer available online, it's difficult to tell.  Natalie got in trouble because current students read her blog and thought the comments were about them. They complained to school administrators and Natalie was quickly suspended from her job.

Do I think Natalie has a free speech right to write on her blog?  Yes.  Is it possible that she's being unfairly vilified and targeted?  Yes.  She probably was trying to write something humorous, although her post of this past Saturday emphasizes disappointment and dissatisfaction with student participation and performance (i.e. "I was right to put them down.")

So, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.  We have a legal right to burn the American flag as a form of free speech.  Burning the flag carries consequences.  If a person does it in sight of military personnel, law enforcement personnel or just average patriots, he or she should be prepared for the consequences of free speech.

So that is where teacher Natalie Munroe is.  Her employment as a teacher has nothing to do with free speech.  I see no reason for her not to continue blogging, and I don't think she or any other teacher should refrain from exercising their rights to free speech online.  At the same time, the District where she teaches should have the right to determine whether or not she's performing her job up to standards or not.  

However, with numerous horrible teachers continuing in classrooms across America for years, I also question why Natalie is being singled out.  She is by far from the only teacher who's ever blogged about students.  Other abominable teachers do just about anything bad imaginable and do not lose their jobs. 

As a last thought, I'd just ask people to think about the existence of her blog as a "Blogspot" blog.  This free service is the haven for defamers, anonymous trolls, and other reprehensible content of virtually any type (child porn, advocating racism and violence, etc.).  Blogspot is uncensored and free - obviously a person with a desire to make negative or worthless commentary would rather do anything but pay any type of fee for a more professional-level service.

Natalie Munroe should never have made those comments (one of which contained a pretty serious spelling error) about her students.  Just because we have a "right" to do something does not make it right.

Abdul Poked You on Facebook

As the quintessential Facebook hoarder (first Farmville, now friends - or was it the other way around?), I find myself very selective in how I handle the service.  My model for FB is Nan Holder, one of my absolutest favorite-est people.  Or when I grow up, I wish I would be Nancy, but it's far more likely that I'll be . . .

Yes, I heard that Melissa Rivers finally laid down the law to her mother and demanded - no more plastic surgery!

By the way, there is a monstrously-large Nordstrom Rack at the Laguna Hills Mall and I got 4 amazing items yesterday for less than $75, including a tailored Faconnable shirt, another XCVI shirt, a formerly $500 jacket from a maker I hadn't known before (looking into them, cool jacket) and . . . another Etienne Aigner belt that was only at the reduced Nordstrom Rack price, not actually on sale.  The other 3 items were 60% to 75% off their already marked-down prices.  I hesitate to say that I paid a WalMart price for the XCVI top . . . but I like, did ($6.99).

Oops!  Back to Abdul poked me on Facebook.  He did!  

I've been hearing from some of my writing friends lately that they are frustrated with the writers who will "friend" everyone on FB only to send out "Be a Fan of!" messages or "Like . . .[my book]" messages.  Well, I'll just share that I never openly expressed it before, but, yeah.  I stopped "liking" and "friending" fan pages a while back. It impresses me dis-favorably when I am spammed by someone who clearly is only about promoting what they have for sale.  Of course, Facebook itself is a very emotional topic.

I do follow some marketing information, mostly for my "other" job (nonprofit fundraising).  And the marketing world oddly seems both behind and in-front of various trends.  There have been concerns for some time that Facebook isn't meeting the needs of "Millennials," which would I guess be people my students' age, or Meredith and Anthony's ages. By this, the marketers mean that younger people have figured out that since many people can see their embarrassing photos and statements, this could make it tough for them to get jobs IRL.

Here's my opinion:  FB in many ways is just like the real world.  In the real world, if someone talks only about themselves and never acknowledges others, that person is seldom very popular.  In real life, if a person has come for dinner and is constantly bleating the same statement over and over, they tend to, gee, what did my grandmother say?  Oh - wear out their welcome.  

However, in real life, Abdul doesn't poke me.  Abdul can only poke me on Facebook.  I think that might be a reason to keep using FB . . . or not!

* * * * *

Health tip of the day:  give up extras in your beverages, including milk, cream, "creamer" (guh!), sugar or any type of artificial sweetener.  If you drink soda - substitute water.  You'll be surprised at losing at least "bloat," and will also feel more energy throughout the day.

Preaching to the Choir When the Song Has Changed

Washington insiders, and their hangers-on in local government and various other sycophantic constituents like the terrifyingly tone-deaf Andrew Sullivan ("I'm a gay rights advocate - and my advocacy consists of outing everyone gay or not - whee!!") - let's hope that Andrew is at least getting paid well for his public boosterism of the current U.S. national political administration, as well as side-projects like thrashing candidates in entertainment-oriented areas where Andrew hopes to get a job, like California (see his recent whaling on Meg Whitman - nice, Andrew - what if she was giving you your paycheck?).

It takes all kinds, and da dumb sheep-kine is definitely flailing around looking for their trough of free oats, headpats, comfortable daily livings for doing jack-diddley and making fun of other people as long as they're straight, white or don't want to share their sexual orientation or personal problems with the entire world . . .

This is first of all, one of the biggest karma-fests the world has yet seen, and those to which karma is coming, and will come for in the weeks and months to come, truly do not seem to "get" what's happening to them. 

We have fables like "the boy who cried wolf" to tell us what happened when the kid who lied about the wolf coming finally had the wolf really show up.  No matter what media spin there is, it is now one month after the Gulf oil spill and the government response is a website, with logos, and it's not even a good web design.  Almost all government websites are bad, blank, or worse.  On this website, the "current operations" page is blank.  Had the oil spill occurred in 2005, this minimal response would have certainly spawned the firestorm of internet forwards to the effect that President Bush had responded to the puppetmaster command of Dick Cheney to release sharks in the flooded streets of New Orleans to eat all the black people.  The thing is - feels good, doesn't it?  Feels great - awesome.  I mean to descend to that level and denigrate those in charge because you are satisfied with the performance of 3-term senators like Barbara Boxer, who has cosponsored and/or sponsored less than one bill a year during her 18 years in the U.S. Senate and whose main claim to achievement is her own re-election campaigns.  It feels so awesome to politically champion the elderly and entitled, such as Arlen Spector and Harry Reid - the claims to fame of which are equally undistinguished records of 24-7 entitlement for a lifetime. 

See, there were not that-great responses during President Bush's term.  It's highly likely that the Iraq War was a cluster*** manipulated by those who were very emotionally certain that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but whose beliefs were easily manipulated by those invested in making sure that war happened.  It sounds so familiar to me.  It sounds like spending 20% of the school year on "global warming" and launching a media campaign against childhood obesity when decades of studies have concluded that there is really no such thing as "food insecurity" in America - there's a lack of nutritious food and places/ways to safely and enjoyably exercise and play in inner-city areas.  Food Stamps are associated with greater obesity rates in women and children because many food choices in inner-city areas are poor or fast-food or high fat.  Sedentary, urbanized, tv- and internet/game-addicted people also voluntarily make poor dietary, meal-planning and exercise choices.  Blame McDonald's, television, video games, George Bush and . . . blame blame blame - well for Pete's sake at least figure that the Food Stamps given to feed genuinely poor, malnourished children decades ago are now providing extra junk food in sedentary lifestyles and go from there!

We are all about "appearance" and "emotion," not even reality.  I'm certainly known for being passionate and emotional, but I've absolutely had it with the lies. 

If the U.S. Government and most mainstream "media" commentators were teenagers, I would cut their allowance off and make them get a job and earn their living.  As to those who read, and comment, on the same lies all day long, the girls sitting around ooh-ing and ahh-ing over Justin Bieber are more in-touch than they are, and have just as much, or more, chance of success in getting what they want right now.  Just in case anyone thinks Jerry Brown is a real hot candidate for California Governor!  This remarkably Barbara-Boxer-Botox-like woman does . . .  And gets paid for it, at least for the time being.  It's like she's singing "Nearer My God to Thee," on the deck of the Titanic. 

Great Book and Blog for Moms and Kids Alike

I want to give a shoutout to my friend Laura Diamond, who I know from Beyond Shelter.  Laura is Beyond Shelter's current board president and she's been an amazing volunteer and supporter as long as I've been there.

Laura has her own blog and a great book that she edited of true essays on parenthood called Deliver Me. Laura's got a great voice and everything she writes rings very true.

If you're a parent or a child, you can't go wrong reading Laura.  I think that covers just about everybody out there.  Funny, bittersweet and insightful - this describes Laura's writing.

So go go go!!  Take a few minutes to read and discover a great new voice!  I recently heard from my friend Susan Koppelman, the literary historian, again after a several-year hiatus.  I think Laura's writing would fit right in if you enjoy the many books that Susan has edited of writing from women.

War Over Words

Everybody has something to say about Amazon's removal of Macmillan's print and eBooks from its online storefront over the weekend. 

Computer World's Matt Hamblen interprets the battle as being related to the launch of the iPad.  Overall, he gave a great summary and broad coverage to the situation.  Matt's perspective is that in this battle, the iPad is the winner, with Amazon coming out on the bottom.  Charles Stross is depressing; however, he used a cool word:  "gooily." 

The LA Times book blog covers our sci fi pundits, and quotes a HarperStudio executive as saying "It only costs us $2.50 to $3.00 less to produce the eBook, not $18 less."  I'm still puzzling on that quote.  Still puzzling over the quote in today's NY Times article that declares the battle over, with Amazon capitulating to Macmillan's plans.  "In the model that Amazon prefers," the Times asserted, "publishers typically collect $12.50 to $17.50 for new e-books. Under the new agency model, publishers will typically make $9 to $10.50 on new digital editions."

I guess this must mean the Amazon "loss leader" pricing of $9.99, referring to Amazon's reported payment of 50% of the hardcover price on an eBook.  This is something I'm still not getting.  And with the reported new 70-30 discount arrangement (as opposed to - the other way around), seems to me that I'm getting $10.50 on the $14.99 book, and the . . 9.99 Kindle devil is $6.99 to the publisher - if that's an actual PRICE.

So, I happen to know that lots of authors signed ebook royalty contracts with their publishers for 15% of the cover price.  Is that, of the cover price of the hardcover?  Of the . . . ???  The iPad eBook?  The Kindle eBook?  Oh, goodness.  What shall we do?  And TechDirt says Amazon caved to the publisher's request for higher prices.

I probably am a retard, but I think I'll part ways with Computer World over this one.  I don't think people will want to pay $14.99 per eBook even on the ultra cool giant iPhone iPad. Teleread covers reader backlash.  I've already seen - and used - the "deep windows" or tiered pricing on the Kindle, with newer bestsellers priced at $9.99 and others priced much less.  I was glad to get some good books for very reasonable $1.99 and $2.99 prices.  Which, all told, is a lot better than zero, isn't it?  I mean -70% of zero is still ZERO.