the tindog coffeehouse

It was 40 years ago yesterday, on October 29, 1969, that the first message was sent across ARPANET (which would evolve into today’s modern Internet).  The message? “LO”.  Yeah, it was supposed to be “LOGIN”, but the thing crashed after the “O”.

And thus was the born the inspiration for AT&T’s wireless network.  The End.

Previously:
Vanity Fair’s history of the Internet

…was including Internet Explorer 8 with it.

Hear me out.

Windows 7 has gotten a lot of praise for its improvements over Vista, both under-the-hood changes to the core OS as well as more visible changes such as a revamped taskbar and the introduction of features like Jump Lists and Libraries.  It’s not a major upgrade of Vista and certainly not perfect, but most of my complaints are minor.  For example, why is there still so much fluff (desktop gadgets, Wordpad, Sticky Notes, etc.)?  Why all the boring and/or confusing “Microsoft-isms” (Home Groups, User Account Control, Windows Live Essentials, Windows Easy Transfer, BitLocker, Aero Peek, Aero Shake)?  And why is Steve Ballmer still around?

But again, with the possible exception of the Ballmer question, those are minor annoyances.  Where I think Microsoft really missed a huge opportunity was in not killing off Internet Explorer.  I mean, let’s face it, IE is a disaster.  Sure IE8 is better than previous versions, but it doesn’t even begin to compare to Firefox, Chrome, or Safari.  It’s slower, consumes a huge amount of memory when using multiple tabs, and miserably fails the industry-standard Acid3 test.

Microsoft needs to completely ditch IE and replace it with a brand new browser built to support web standards, not worry about backwards compatibility.  Maybe even build it with Webkit like Chrome and Safari.  It would go a long way in restoring the image of Microsoft and would show that they can effectively compete with Google and Apple.  They’ve made strides with Bing, now they need to follow it up with a modern, standards-compliant web browser.

To me, Windows 7 would’ve been the perfect showcase for such a browser.  Instead, Microsoft seems to be content with the status quo, and that’s a big disappointment.

Previously:
Internet Explorer 8: Faster but no Firefox
Microsoft: Internet Explorer 8 perfect for porn addicts
Windows 7 Beta 1: Initial thoughts
Windows 7 Beta 1: The other stuff

Robert Mueller may run the FBI, but evidently Mrs. Mueller runs the house.  After the FBI Director nearly fell for a phishing scam, his wife banned him from banking online.

“Just a few clicks away from falling into a classic Internet phishing scam,” Mueller “barely caught himself in time” and admitted he “definitely should have known better.”

He said he changed his passwords and tried to pass the incident off to his wife as a “teachable moment,” but she was having none of it and told him, “It is our money. No more Internet banking for you!”

Keep in mind this is the head of the friggin’ FBI we’re talking about here.  Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the Bureau, does it?

No word on whether Mr. Mueller got to keep his MySpace page.

Apple can now fire John Hodgman and Justin Long.  Thanks to Microsoft and their ridiculous (but apparently real) Windows 7 Launch Party video, they’ll never need to create another stupid “I’m a Mac” commercial again.

Why anyone at Microsoft actually thought this was a good idea, I’ll never know.  If they really have any aspirations of remaining even somewhat relevant compared to OS X or Google or even Linux, this video immediately negates any chance of that.  Long forgotten are the “I’m a PC” commercials, which I thought were really well done.  Windows 7, evidently, is for 50-something women who blow up balloons and invite people over to play with their computers.

Seriously, would anyone actually host one of these things?  And if so, does Microsoft actually want to admit that?

If you do host a Windows 7 launch party, though, you could walk away with a copy of Windows 7, Steve Ballmer Edition.  Instead of a Blue Screen of Death, it throws a chair at you and sweats a lot.

Uh, no thanks.

Of course, if the thought of a party to celebrate an operating system sounds boring, you could always throw one of these instead:

Previously:
New Microsoft ‘I’m a PC’ ads: too little too late
‘How Apple Plays Upon Our Insecurities’
Microsoft: Internet Explorer 8 perfect for porn addicts

After two Texas Tech football players recently posted negative comments on Twitter, coach and head pirate Mike Leach banned his team from tweeting altogether and also suspended offensive lineman Brandon Carter indefinitely.

Naturally, the story generated a lot of interest in the media and around the Internet at a time when the Red Raiders are still dealing with the aftermath of losing their second game of the season.  But was it the right move?

James Hodgins, social media director for the Price Group advertising agency in Lubbock, Texas, says no:

What right does Leach have to ban his players from Twitter just because they posted negative views? Can a company ban its employees from social media if they post negative comments? Or staying at the university, can a professor ban her students for the same thing?

Of course, for the team and a business, there needs to be a policy in place that outlines what can and cannot be said. But how can you claim transparency (the whole point of social media) if you ban all negative points?

In my view, Leach should have suspended players temporarily from Twitter until the time the athletic department could create a solid set of standards. This, people would have understood, and there would have been less controversy surrounding the program.

As it stands now, Leach either has to stand by his guns and be the bad guy, or backtrack and admit he overreacted. Neither are good options.

Of course the athletic department should’ve had a policy in place before this happened, but obviously it didn’t.  As a result, Leach had no choice but to implement a ban, at least until some kind of guidelines can be put into place.  Yes, that makes him the bad guy.  But sometimes that goes with the job.

That said, I disagree with Mr. Hodgins’ claim that the whole point of social media is transparency.  Transparency implies that everything about an organization is out in the open, available to be posted freely on the Internet without reservation, and quite frankly, that’s pretty irresponsible.  Some kind of reasonable limits need to be in place.

Does that mean that players aren’t free to express their frustrations online?  Yes and no.  The distinction is this: When you identify yourself as part of a particular organization, be it a football team or a company, you represent that organization, whether you’re on the clock or not.  And that means that any public behavior is a direct reflection on that organization.  As such, organizations have a responsibility to place restrictions on what their members say and do publicly in order to protect their image.  And that is in no way infringing on our rights to free speech.

Further, even though they didn’t violate any written rules since none existed, by venting their frustrations with the team publicly on Twitter, the Tech players displayed questionable judgment and a lack of maturity.  If they had a problem with Leach, they should’ve taken it up with him in private, not simply posted their opinions online.  And if players can’t be trusted to use proper discretion, then an outright ban is the only option.

Previously:
Sorry, Leach is not ‘the best college football coach in the country’

The tech blogs are up in arms over AT&T’s new MicroCell service, femtocell base stations that wireless customers can use to boost cell phone service in places where service is spotty.  The blogs essentially have two complaints: first, that AT&T should just fix their network instead of applying a band-aid to it; and second, that AT&T should provide the service for free.  (They’ll charge $20 a month for the MicroCell service, or $10 if you have AT&T phone or Internet service.  Customers who have both can get it for free.)

Both complaints are valid, but at least give AT&T credit for offering something.  Yes, it’s a band-aid, but it’s better than what we have now.  Personally, since I would qualify for free service, I’m thrilled; my house is one giant dead spot.

Still, knowing AT&T, I can’t help but to imagine a roomful of executives laughing maniacally over their latest offering.  First, they attract hoards of data-hungry customers with the iPhone, who willingly fork over $30 a month for a data plan in addition to voice and texting fees.  When the service is less than ideal, they then offer them MicroCell service, which routes cellular traffic through your Internet service.  Then when they decide you’re using too much Internet bandwidth, they either throttle your service or institute bandwidth caps.

OK, so that last part may be speculation on my part, but it’s not that unrealistic.  AT&T already throttles Internet traffic of its U-verse customers in order to provide HD video.  And they’ve already experimented with bandwidth caps.  So it’s not unreasonable to expect that heavy MicroCell usage would help push those endeavors further along.  It also gives the telco additional ammunition to fight against new net neutrality regulations coming from the FCC.

Previously:
Bandwidth experiment, day 2: throttled?
Bandwidth experiment: the final results
Media finally reporting on broadband caps
Metered broadband vs. cloud computing

Over the weekend, I closed my Facebook account.  Technically, it’s “deactivated”, meaning I can log back in and reactivate it later if I choose.  I’m not sure I want to, though.

It wasn’t a rash decision; it was something I had considered numerous times before.  And honestly, even as I clicked the button to deactivate it, I had mixed feelings about doing so.  But I did it anyway.

Why?  I think I finally just ran out of patience with it.  Every single thing I did on the site, whether I changed my profile picture, posted a photo, or updated my status, resulted in some kind of response from someone, and the responses weren’t always welcome.  Just this weekend my “friends” told me I looked like a serial killer, offered me unwanted (and not very accurate) medical advice, and tried to coax me into a political fight.  Between that and the never-ending barrage of Facebook quizzes and other nonsense, I had simply had enough.  (And I’m not the only one.)

I want to like Facebook, I really do.  I believe there’s a lot of value in it as a tool to be able to keep up with friends and family members.  But there has to be a boundary, some kind of line at which sharing becomes over-sharing, some point when it becomes best just to keep your opinions to yourself.  And within the “safe” and “trusted” walls of Facebook, it seems like people don’t care about such boundaries.  You’re their “friend”, aren’t you?  Therefore, they’re free to let you know you remind them of John Wayne Gacy.  Because that’s what friends are for.

I’m not saying, of course, that people shouldn’t speak their mind online; please do, even if I don’t agree with you.  But even online, if you can’t say something nice (or even interesting), it’s often wise to not say anything at all.

I’m sure at some point I’ll probably reactivate my account, but if I do, changes will be made to how I use the site.  But at least for now, silence is golden.

Previously:
Why I joined Facebook and LinkedIn
How to play the game of ‘Blog-Facebook-Twitter’
A little social network housecleaning

Back in April, Senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe introduced two bills, 773 and 778, which would’ve essentially given the President the unilateral ability to shut down any services on the Internet — even those from the private sector — in the case of a “cybersecurity emergency”.  But the bills didn’t stop there.  They would’ve also given the Commerce Department “access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.”

As Wired points out, S-773 has been revised significantly since then, removing much of the controversial language and replacing it with more sensible (albeit general) guidelines for dealing with with cyber attacks on the U.S.:

(2) [I]n the event of an immediate threat to strategic national interests involving compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network—
(A) [the President] may declare a cybersecurity emergency; and
(B) may, if the President finds it necessary for the national defense and security, and in coordination with relevant industry sectors, direct the national response to the cyber threat and the timely restoration of the affected critical infrastructure information system or network;
(3) shall, in coordination with various critical infrastructure industry sectors, develop detailed cyber emergency response and restoration plans for each critical infrastructure industry sector;

(Full text of the bill here.)

Further, the revised bill seems to negate S-778, which called for the creation of an Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor.  Instead, S-773 calls for a Cybersecurity Advisory Panel, which would be comprised of “representatives of industry, academic, non-profit organizations, interest groups and advocacy organizations, and State and local governments who are qualified to provide advice and information on cybersecurity research, development, demonstrations, education, personnel, technology transfer, commercial application, or societal and civil liberty concerns”.

All in all, it’s a vast improvement over the original bill.  It gives the President the ability to quickly respond to critical threats to the nation’s information infrastructure, and in emergencies such as those of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, such a response is absolutely vital.  And when you consider how vulnerable we are to a targeted cyber attack, it’s obvious we must be prepared to deal with those crises.

That said, the bill is certainly not ideal.  First, it still gives the White House authority over private-sector networks and information systems in the event of an emergency without specifically limiting that authority.  In other words, the definition of what constitutes a “cybersecurity emergency” is still at the sole discretion of the White House, opening the door to potential abuse.  And as I pointed out in April, President Obama has proven time and again that he is more than willing to seize control of private corporations if given the chance.

Second, the inclusion of “interest groups” on the Advisory Panel should raise an immediate red flag.  Think ACORN, the ACLU, RIAA lobbyists, and other groups.  How much influence groups like that would have is unclear, but do we really want to find out?

The revision of S-773 has definitely eased some concerns, but there is still more room for improvement.

Previously:
Bill would give government unrestricted control over the Internet

I’ve had my iPhone 3GS now for about three weeks, and overall I love it.  It’s easy to use, the apps are great, and it’s just a fun and handy device to have around.  But it’s not perfect, nor did I expect it to be.  After using it for a few weeks, here are some things I would change about it if I could:

1. Add an option for different sound profiles. Every other cell phone and smartphone on the planet has this option, but not the Jesus Phone.  I want the ringtone to be louder when I’m in the car but quieter when I’m in the office.  Or maybe turn the ringer off but have the message tones still on.  Is there an easy way to change that?  Nope.  You can go to Settings and adjust the volume slider, but there’s no way to assign these settings to different profiles.  And as far as I can tell, there’s not an app for that.
2. Add a native To-Do app. I can plug my iPhone in to my computer and sync the Calendar, Contacts, and Notes with Outlook, but for whatever reason, the iPhone doesn’t have an app for my Tasks.  Apparently Steve Jobs assumes Apple fanboys don’t do anything, but really this seems like a really dumb omission.  Yes, there are third-party apps to get around this limitation, but why can’t Apple just include one natively?
3. Improve the Mail app. The included Mail app meets most of my needs; after all, it’s not necessarily meant to replace my desktop email client.  But it could be better.  For one, allow email attachments.  OK, it allows for inline attachments, but that could definitely be better.  Also, allow email distribution lists.  What if I want to send the same email to a list of 10 different people?  That requires 10 different emails.  Er, no thanks.
4. Fix the photo rotation bugs. You take a picture while holding the phone in landscape mode (horizontal).  You then turn the phone back upright to portrait mode.  Does the photo rotate with it?  Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t.  Without a third-party app to edit it, your only option is to sync the photo to your computer, edit it there, and then sync it back.  What a pain.
5. Improve the battery life. Of course, no list of iPhone gripes would be complete with a rant about the so-so battery life.  Supposedly the 3GS has a much-improved battery life over its predecessor, but it’s still not great.  Of course, when you realize the iPhone is more computer than phone, it’s easy to see how the battery would be a problem.
6. Allow for MMS messaging. OK, this is more of an AT&T issue, and they keep promising us it will be available eventually.  And actually, it’s not even really that big of a deal to me.  But it’s just another glaring omission that makes you wonder.
7. Make the case less slippery. Apple is all about aesthetics, so banish the thought of changing the design to be more practical.  Sure, the high gloss case is purty, but as your fingerprints accumulate on it, it does tend to get a little slippery.  And no, AppleCare doesn’t cover damage from dropping the thing.  Good thing I haven’t dropped it yet then.
8. Use a standard charger connection. An iPhone with a mini-USB or micro-USB charger connection?  Ridiculous!  No, only proprietary connectors allowed here.  Heaven forbid we should be able to use the same charger from our BlackBerry with our iPhone!  I guess Steve doesn’t want it getting BlackBerry cooties.
9. Allow for a user-replaceable battery. I haven’t run into any battery issues so far, but you know it’s inevitable.  Again, with any other device, I could order a new battery online and swap it out in 30 seconds.  With the iPhone?  Nope, send the whole thing in.  Hope you spent the extra $69 for AppleCare coverage!
10. Add a MicroSD slot for additional storage. I bought a 16 GB 3GS and probably won’t be putting any music or videos on it, so I should have plenty of storage.  But it would still be nice to be able to throw a MicroSD card in there for extra room just in case.  Oh, well.
11. Allow for third-party web browsers. Safari mobile is fine for casual mobile web browsing.  As mobile browsers go, it’s really pretty good.  But like so many other Apple products, it exists in a closed ecosystem.  Have an interest in Mozilla’s Fennec browser, Opera Mini, or Skyfire?  Well, too bad.  Because for the next two years you’ll be using Safari.  And you’ll like it that way.
12. Improve AT&T’s network. Again, this isn’t really an iPhone issue.  But since the iPhone is the flagship of AT&T Wireless, the least they could do is provide a better network.  You know, one that actually lives up to their claims?  Personally, the coverage has been acceptable (not great, but good enough) with one major exception: the deadspot in my home in exactly the same place as my home office.  Really.  In my living room, I can get 3G service and make and receive calls all day long.  I sit down at my desk 30 feet away: No Service.  Seriously?  And no, it’s not the iPhone; my previous AT&T cell phone had the same issue.
13. Make it cheaper. The iPhone is by far the most expensive phone I’ve ever had.  $200 for the phone with a 2-year contract, $30 a month for data, and $5 a month for 200 text messages.  Then you still have to buy a (proprietary) car charger and any other travel chargers you want.  Plus, you’ll probably want some kind of case, screen protector, and external battery.  (I opted to buy a Mophie Juice Pack Air even though it was quite pricey.)  And then there are the apps.  Sure, there are a lot of free apps out there, but many of them aren’t.  So in some cases, you’ll have to open your wallet to get the exact app you need.

Again, like so many iPhone owners, I really do like the thing and wouldn’t trade it for a BlackBerry or Android phone any day of the week.  But as with any other gadget, it’s definitely not perfect.

Anything on this list I’ve forgotten?

Previously:
OK, so I got an iPhone. So what?
‘How Apple Plays Upon Our Insecurities’

Yesterday I bought a new iPhone, which makes me, well, mainstream. Whatever coolness factor that came with owning a “JesusPhone” wore off at least a year ago, and now it seems likes everyone has one. Except of course for the people who have a BlackBerry, or an Android phone, or a Palm Pre. Or that old lady down the street who’s still rocking her Motorola StarTAC.

So if I didn’t get an iPhone to be cool, then why did I get it?  Well, first because I didn’t want to leave AT&T.  Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t particularly like AT&T.  But my wife is on it, as are most of our friends and family, so it just makes sense.  Plus, the rollover minutes provide an extra margin of error just in case we find someone who’s on a different carrier.

Second, the iPhone just meets my needs better than most other phones out there.  That’s not to say BlackBerrys and the rest are bad, they’re just not what I’m looking for right now.  I have a company-issued BlackBerry for work, and it’s great for email and messaging.  But web-browsing on a BlackBerry isn’t as good, nor are apps for Facebook, Twitter, and the like.  And at the end of the day, that’s what made the difference for me.

So, there you go.  Another satisfied Apple fanboy-in-training (despite the impending “iPhoneocalypse“).

Previously:
‘How Apple Plays Upon Our Insecurities’
Giving in to Google
My PDA is on life support
My PDA: ‘I’m not dead yet!’

Microsoft wants you to know that Internet Explorer 8 is the perfect web browser for porn addicts.

At least that’s the message I walked away with after (reluctantly) watching their new IE8 commercial, in which a wife projectile vomits after finding porn on her husband’s laptop.  (If you care to see it, it’s available here.)  The point of the commercial is actually to promote IE8’s InPrivate browsing feature, aka “porn mode”, which hides the browsing history from, well, unapproving spouses.

Really, Microsoft?  Really?  Of all the various features of Internet Explorer you could’ve promoted, you chose to lead off with this one?  Yes, the commercial is disgusting, but what I really don’t understand is why Microsoft thinks InPrivate is such a killer feature.  After all, Chrome and Firefox 3.5 both have identical features, but those browsers are also much faster than IE and adhere better to web standards.

It seems to me that if Microsoft really wanted to go head-to-head against their competitors, they would try to do so in a way that spoke directly to the user base that would be most likely to use their product.  That’s the tactic they took with their “Laptop Hunters” commercials, and it’s the reason those ads work.  They’re not targeted at technical users, but rather non-technical consumers who, when shopping for a new computer, just walk into Best Buy and purchase whatever’s on sale.

And that should be the target audience of these Internet Explorer ads: the people who know nothing about Firefox, Chrome, or Safari, and couldn’t care less.  They could talk about the speed improvements over previous versions of IE.  They could talk about improvements in supporting web standards.  They could talk about web slices, accelerators, or other new and unique features.  Instead, they resort to low-brow slapstick that says nothing about the product other than it’s great for married men with an addiction to hardcore pornography.

Not exactly a winning message, if you ask me.

(By the way, the vomit commercial is just one in a series of ads — all featuring Dean Cain — that comprise their Browse for the Better campaign.  Ironically, as part of the campaign, Microsoft will donate 8 meals to Feeding America for every download of IE8.  Here’s hoping the recipients of those meals can keep their food down.)

Previously:
Internet Explorer 8: Faster but no Firefox
New Microsoft ‘I’m a PC’ ads: too little too late

It’s weird how social networks like Facebook and Twitter can mess with your mind.  You sign up for a Facebook account because, quite frankly, everyone else is doing it.  Then along comes Twitter because, well, why not.  It’s all innocent fun at first, but at some point it becomes less about the quality of the connections being made through the sites and more about the quantity.  How many Facebook friends do I have?  How many people are following me on Twitter?  How many hits is my blog getting, and how can I generate more comments?

Who cares?

I’m rarely on Facebook anymore.  I thought it was because of all the ridiculous surveys and other nonsense that clutter up the news feed, but I’ve come to realize it’s actually because most of the “noise” is coming from a handful of Facebook friends that I’m really not that interested in.  It’s not that they’re bad people, it’s just that I don’t really interact with them any more, and inevitably these are also the same people that update their Facebook status 20 times a day and feel the need to comment on everything.  So I made a decision yesterday to unfriend several of them.

Ironically, at the same time I was cutting my digital ties on Facebook, I was losing 9 followers on Twitter.  Most of them were people or organizations that I had no association with anyway, but one was a person I communicated with fairly regularly.

Immediately, I began trying to figure out what I had said to drive this person away.  Had I offended them in some way?  What had I done wrong?  The pangs of rejection hit me hard for a few minutes.  And then I realized the irony.

I had just let 8 or 9 people go on one social network as 9 people were letting me go on another.  When I unfriended my Facebook friends, it wasn’t personal at all — none of them had hurt me or offended me in any way.  I just wasn’t finding value in their Facebook updates.  In all likelihood, the people who stopped following me on Twitter felt the same way about my tweets: for whatever reason I wasn’t adding value to their lives.

Author Anne Jackson recently wrote on her blog about following “conversations” on Twitter rather than following people:

Overall, unless you have a real strategy behind Twittering, by following a ton of people, you’re not networking. You’re only following a lot of noise. Sure, you may occasionally find a nugget to chew on, but a lot of other well-deserving Tweets will fall through the cracks and be buried in the chaos of the masses. …

If you truly want Twitter to be an effective social networking tool, strategize *somehow* (it doesn’t have to look like mine) or clean house.  If you want it to be a flood of noise, keep hitting the Follow button and let the Tweets roll on by.

As social media takes on a greater role in our lives, we need to stop thinking in terms of quantity.  Simply having more Twitter followers or blog readers or whatever doesn’t mean you’re a better person.  Your self worth shouldn’t be determined by Google Analytics.  In fact, “more” can be worse because it dilutes the value of the connections you really care about.

I hope that if you’re reading this, you do find some value in it.  I hope that if you follow me on Twitter or if we’re Facebook friends, that I’m not just producing a lot of noise in your life.  But if I am, then by all means let me go.  I won’t take it personally.

Previously:
How to play the game of ‘Blog-Facebook-Twitter’