For Your Consideration: Google Street View Bloopers

When you take pictures of every street in the entire country, you are bound to come up with some funny things. I have collected, and present here for your amusement, what I deem to be the best of said "things." Enjoy.









And now for the best thing ever:

1.


2.


3.


4.


For more visit Street View Fun.

I Know You Never Ever Read The User Agreement

How does it feel knowing that all of your personal information is in the hands of a 20-something CEO who is desperately trying to prove to investors the he can turn a profit on the internet? Well if you are one of the many users of Facebook, this is the situation you are in, and as CEO Mark Zuckerbeg recently proved, he is willing to go behind your back if it means turning a profit.

Recently Facebook pulled a fast one and changed their user agreement without so much as a post to the news feed. This would be fine if it were simply smoothing out the wording , or clarifying a point. Unfortunately it was a bold authoritarian move which can be summed up with the words, "I own you ." With the change, Facebook declared ownership over everything that you post, including contact information, wall posts, and even photos of yourself. Not only did they declare permanent ownership of what is currently posted on Facebook, but also what has been posted in accounts that have been deleted. It was only after a bored anon felt like rereading his user agreement, that the change was reported to several internet watchdog groups.

Naturally, the response from the public was overwhelmingly negative. A massive Facebook group was constructed within a day protesting the change. Zuckerberg tried to explain it away as a simple clarification in policy, rather than a regime change. Luckily no one drank the kool-aid, and the policy was changed back several days later.
While I don't think that Facebook should have the legal right to change their user agreement without first notifying their users, it does hit upon something that has always bothered me about how people use the internet. You know all of those boxes below long bits of text that you so flippantly click when signing up for a new online service? I know yo click them without reading the agreement. I know you think to yourself, "well if this were a bad thing to sign, it wouldn't be allowed." Wrong.

One thing that most people fail to understand is that the internet is quite literally the wild west of technology. It is relatively unbound by law, and the laws that are in place are so sparsely policed that if you wander outside of the sheriff's territory, you had better be ready to defend yourself. Luckily that isn't as hard or as dangerous as it was in the old west, but it does mean that if you aren't watching out, you can sign a whole chunk of yourself over to another entity with just the click of your mouse. Using social networking sites, and the internet in general, is somewhat of a Faustian bargain. You can have anything you want, but you can not have yourself. You can't have your privacy.

Whether you like it or not, once you post something to the internet, it's no longer private. I don't care how many passwords you have on that Photobucket account, or what you changed your privacy settings to. If it is on the internet, and someone wants it, it's as good as theirs. Take this into consideration. Employers scan Facebook when screening employees. Just because that photo of you passed out in a public restroom is for friends eyes only, doesn't mean they won't see it. More than likely they will. Now imagine that Facebook has a price for this information. They don't even have to break in or use a backdoor. This same price is offered to advertisers who want to know what you buy, how old you are, and where to send the spam to. Not only this, but even if you delete your account, Facebook is holding onto this picture for possible blackmailing opportunities in the future. (An extreme vision of the future, but a possible one)

What Facebook did was shady, but well within the limits of acceptability. Don't expect this to be the last time that Facebook, or other sites try to mislead you. At this point in time, Zukerberg is backed against a wall, pinned down on all sides by investors wondering where their millions are. Do you think they will listen when he tells them the internet doesn't function in the same way as the real world? More than likely, he will try to use what he has to make their millions, and when it comes to Facebook, all he has is what you post.

The Internet's First Top Model

In 2000 The Guenis Book of World Records was the shit. It had a big shiny cover, a picture of Dancing Baby, and a half page spread of Cindy Margolis in a purple bikini. She was holding down the record of "Most Downloaded Woman." Looking back on it I can almost picture the out of touch executive giving the order to cram the book full of that internet thing. At the time it wasn't hard to pick out the new hot thing, but the speed at which culture moves on the internet has been increasing exponentially. It seems impossible to me that anyone holding down a day job would have time to keep up with it, which makes me wonder if the creators of the hit show America's Next Top Model were really aware of what they were doing when they chose Allison Harvard to be on the show.



To a large population, Allison Harvard is known as Creepychan, and has been since around 2005 when her pictures were posted to an online image board. Because of her enormous eyes, and creepy photos she quickly developed a devout and obsessive following. Did someone at the CW know this? Is this why she was chosen? I seriously doubt it.

In the proud tradition of reality show web sites, a popularity poll was posted. Before any of the other contestants had broken triple digits, Creepychan was ahead by several thousand votes. Last I checked she had 96% of the vote, and it was rising. All this thanks to a massive push from people determined to prove their devotion. I would imagine that this has left the webmaster baffled, the producers jubilant, and instilled a deep feeling of insignificance in the other models.

It will be interesting to see how this season unfolds, which is exactly why people should take note of this. I hate the show, but will I be tuning in? Yes. Intentionally or not, this show has just connected with a rather sizable audience who would never have previously considered watching. Let's see if they tune in as well.

Good News Everyone!

Recently the visionary Matt Groening did an interview with CNN. Among other illuminating tidbits, the Simpsons creator spoke about the future of Futurama.

Originally airing on Fox beginning in 2000, the show only ran for four seasons before being canceled. It wasn't until the show began airing in syndication on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim programming block that the show's massive cult following became apparent. Like family guy, this following persuaded some people to reinvest in the series. Comedy central ordered four straight to DVD movies, the last of which, was just released.

As a fan I was excited about the movies, but in this interview Groening mentions the possibility that Comedy Central may renew the series. Keep your fingers crossed. If a show like Family Guy can be resurrected, then let's hope that the same can be done for Futurama. Unless you don't like futurama. In that case I guess you should just do nothing.

Anonymously Generated Content

I came across this piece of short anonymously generated fiction. These aren't always worth reading, but I liked this one and thought I would post it.

"If one were to visit "Burger Tex" in Austin, Texas, one would find what appears to be a normal restaurant at the first glance. There is a TV, A pool Table, several groups of patrons, and Hispanic cooks behind a sneeze guard, linoleum floors, fluorescent lights one of which is flickering lazily. After a short time, however, one will begin to notice things that appear to be just... off. One will notice that the pulley that releases the ball to the pinball machine is missing, one will notice that there is no bathroom, One will notice that no patrons are entering or leaving the establishment. They will have seconds, thirds, fourths and fifths of their meals and won't say a word to each other or their servers and will never excuse themselves to the bathroom. One will notice that the cashier will not ask you for money, nor is there a cash register. The menu would be handwritten with a sharpie, offering Burgers, Cheeseburgers, Salad, Tang and Coca Cola. One would not feel fear, dismay, awkwardness or a feeling of reclusiveness. One would feel nothing.

One would point to their choice on the menu, knowing not to disrupt the silence-only broken by the running sound of the old analog television. One would receive their food via the counter underneath the cashier's blank desk. One would continue to the toppings bar, without haste, and place all their desired meal, except...

WHERE THE FUCK IS THE LETTUCE? HUH? JUST WHO THE FUCK OWNS A BURGER JOINT WITHOUT SOME FUCKING LETTUCE ON CALL???

Never mind it. One wouldn't want to stick out to their fellow patrons. One Continue on to their table, ignoring one's earlier outburst.

One would continue one's mediocre meal and throw one's wrapper away into an empty trash can with a fresh liner. One would turn around and see all of one's fellow patrons exiting their restaurant. One would feel rage and betrayal washing over their body. One would sit down and pray newer, more loyal peers would enter. One would continue to get up and order food that isn't there from servers who aren't there. One would continue to move until they cannot stay awake any further. One would fall asleep.
One would wake up, in an empty strip-mall sector without any memory of any dream of the night before. One would exit the best night of their life. One would exit a room of no worries, hatred, pressure to feel, care or choose. One would, in all human nature, ruin their own heaven. One would ruin the very thing they love.
One would continue their life as normal... but never feel the same feeling of relaxation when they left their ordinary life. A cookie would never taste as sweet, an orgasm would never give them the same rush, a joke would never give the same shock value. One would descend into their own personal hell." -Giant Clank /x/

This type of fiction is particularly interesting to me. In the past, writings and other artistic creations were ostensibly created for money or some personal gain, but the motive behind this is less apparent. What would be the purpose of putting thought into something and then throwing it to the masses without signing your name? It is usually simply for feedback, amusement, and even so that it can be copied.

The copy paste function is something that anyone who has spent more than a few hours with a computer is aware of, but what most people are unaware of is the subculture that has cropped up around it. The anonymous boards of the internet have provided a new forum for a digital generation of folk tales. Stories generated by unknown anons, merely so that they may be copied and pasted by those who enjoy them. Alteration, and improvement on the original is often encouraged, and if a piece strikes true with enough people, it may just live on to be pasted again and again.

An interesting aspect of this is the anti IP attitude of this culture. While most of the media industries are loudly reminding all of the pirates out there that IP isn't generated for free, much on the internet seem to be proving them wrong. While not everyone is involved in these circles, it feels like a part of the free culture movement.

Of course, as with everything on the internet, most of these are far more short lived than a traditional folk tale, but the basic premise is the same. A piece of writing generated to express something inherent and common to those sharing a culture.

Maybe it is my Texas heritage that drew me to this piece. Burger Tex is a real place in Austin, TX. It could easily be that this particular piece of copy paste has limited appeal. At any rate, I reproduce it here, for you with the permission of Giant Clank who created it. He invites critique, and has a link to this page. If you have any thoughts, please leave critique for him in the comments section.

To Rebuild by way of Destroyer

I remember spending hours clicking away at minesweeper on my family's first P.C. With no understanding of how the game worked, I never got too far. It didn't matter to me one bit though. All my kindergarten mind was interested in was interacting with this machine. Soon I was learning my first dos prompts, and sending the computer spiraling into safe mode with my inept commands. I had no idea then how much further the computer would reach into my daily life. I suppose the first revelation came when I realized that America Online was not the entire internet. Soon after that, Napster came around to save us all from twenty dollar C.D.'s, each which likely would only have one track worth listening to. Napster was such an amazing revelation.

I don't think it really occurred to any of my middle school friends that what we were doing on our parents computers could be illegal. After all, I had spent years copying Weird Al Yankovich albums for my friends, and P2P file sharing seemed like exactly the same thing. Our clueless parents certainly had no idea that we were all committing what the music industry would consider grand larceny until the aging rock group Metallica got whiny and made a big stink about how their art was being mistreated. "It is sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is." Was the official statement from drummer Lars Ulrich in 2000 when it was announced that the band would be filing suite against Napster, The University of Southern California, Yale University, and Indiana University. It's a shame that bloated egos of rock stars were the ones who got to speak for the industry. It has been argued that their violent reaction started the industry down the path towards destruction. Rolling Stone writer and author of Appetite For Self Destruction may have put it best in this interview when he said, "Had the record labels jumped into a deal with Napster when the time was right, when Napster was at its peak, I really do think that could've been a business model." Unfortunately, rather than embracing the digital revolution, the music industry reacted with fear, and a torrent of frivolous lawsuits, mostly against college students and unsuspecting parents has followed. Like many other industries, the music industry is left asking themselves just what they are going to do. The trend of illegal file sharing has done nothing but increase, and traditional business models seem worthless. It is my opinion, that the destruction of the music industry is merely a transitional phase that will make room for multiple, more elastic models for distributing intellectual properties.

To fully understand and appreciate part of the problem faced by industries dealing in intellectual property, you have to understand the collective psyche of the internet. The recording industry is up against a paradigm shift in the way people view copyright, and their relation to it. In the infamous A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, John Perry Barlow declares the internet free of all national law, and casts off old ideas. Among these is the idea that one can own intellectual property. "In our world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost." While this statement has already become somewhat dated, the sentiment remains. Reading the news online, watching free shows and movies, and listening to free music has become the societal norm.

Current copyright law may say that most of these things are illegal, but it certainly isn't the norm. It is only recently that copyright law was of any real importance to anyone other than people directly involved in these industries. A decade ago, Napster was just a baby, and the largest problem that the music industry had to worry about was teens making mix tapes for their friends. No one in the public sector had any reason to be concerned about laws regarding intellectual property. But I bet if I looked through your internet history today I could find at least a handful of things that could be considered copyright infringement. Everything from streaming a movie from a site like allc.org, to posting a video of yourself lip syncing to an old boy band hit, are illegal under the current laws. "We are, technically speaking, a nation of copyright infringers." -John Tehranian

So does this mean that we are all going to pay for our unwitting crimes? The RIAA would like for us to, but luckily those of this opinion seem to be on the losing side of this boxing match. In the opposite corner of the ring, are people like Lawrence Lessig. Coming from a point of view that many would consider extremely radical, Lessig has been called an intellectual property communist by critics. This guy is on your side if you like to bit torrent, remix, or partake in most other modern pass times. His vision of the world is one where culture isn't limited by by the restraints of monetary vale, and any work can be reproduced an infinite number of times with any variation. This view actually makes a lot of sense when you look at the current trend. A large portion of music being produced is created from snippets of previously recorded songs, and every time you reply to an e-mail you are reproducing the original text of the sender. Content is generated anonymously every single day, and copied and pasted without a second thought. In the world of cyberspace, it seems logical to do away with most copyright laws.

But where does this philosophy leave the recording industry, and all other creators and distributors of intellectual property? For the most part, it leaves them out to dry. Under these rules being a musician would be impossible to turn into a career. Most IPs would be created as a hobby, and because of the ease of posting your own work to the internet, no middle men would be needed to bring the content to the people. The end result would likely be a flood of work with no quality control. Imagine going to a record store where you have to dig through piles of trash, hoping against hope to find something listenable. Already, Myspace is somewhat like this, as are many other providers of free streaming music. Luckily this will not be the case.

In all likely hood we will see the emergence of multiple business models for distribution to pick up the slack left by the all but destroyed recording industry. Already we are seeing the industry attempting to adapt, with the advent of places like the iTunes store, and Emusic. These stores though, are too much of a literal translation of the old model, and will likely be too little too late to save the recording industry. People are largely unenthusiastic when confronted with the idea of paying upwards of ten dollars for a package of digital files. To add to the problem of this model for digital distribution the music industry execs have opted to attach DRM protection to the files. While their fear of piracy is understandable, it doesn't appear that DRM has been at all beneficial to them. In response the the widespread complaints about the DRM protection on songs bought from the iTunes store, Steve Jobs issues this response, explaining that until the record execs realize the error of their ways, his hands are tied. Since this statement, iTunes has gone DRM free, but it is still unclear whether of not this will bolster sales of their music, especially when piracy rates are soaring.

I think the most likely, and obvious solution for the time being is the model presented by the fine folks at Amie Street music. Amie Street is an independent music download site, where much of the music is free. Let me explain. All music on Amie Street is free until it has been downloaded a certain number of times, at which point the price of the song is raised slightly. Songs reach a maximum price of ninety-eight cents once they have become popular enough. This system of community driven pricing feels right with the spirit of the internet. It also shows a level of humility not seen in the mainstream recording industry. After the CD boom of the 90's it often feels like the execs feel entitled to an inflated cash flow that they never really deserved. Well luckily the days of paying up to twenty dollars for a C.D., which is essentially just a piece of trash to litter your car with, are over.

Not only is the internet blossoming with new models of distribution, but many labels are finding that old models are being revived. Surprisingly, the buying of vinyl is becoming poplar once again. Many fans want to support the artists, but don't want to spend their money on plastic garbage (C.D.s). Instead they opt to buy something that feels more like a finished product. Something a little more permanent. This phenomena is definitely something that the labels should pay attention to. When trying to provide digital downloads, they should look for ways to make the product more than the sum of its parts. With vinyl copies you often receive large posters, and extended liner notes. Something similar should be done with MP3 downloads. On the last N.I.N release, The Slip, each track came with its own art work, rather than a single picture for the album. While I find the art boring, it is still an interesting angle. Record labels should no longer expect people to pay for garbage.

Before we see a few extremely successful models for distribution emerge, it is likely that we will see the industry fall further into disrepair. We also will likely see reform to currently existing copyright laws, as well as more specific laws regarding illegal downloading. For the time being you can probably continue to steal all of your music, and only run a slight risk of being sued. But soon enough we should have models of distribution that cater to all tastes. Such is the beauty of the internet. An infinite amount of space. We just have to wait for the industry to get desperate enough to start trying new things. *Looks at watch.* Shouldn't be too long now.

Sources:
Barlow, John. "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace." homes. 08 Feb 1996. 21 Feb 2009 .

Barlow, John. "IP in The Global Net." Homes. 13 Dec 1993. 21 Feb 2009 .

Ginsburg, Jane C.,Essay - How Copyright Got a Bad Name For Itself(October 18, 2002). Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2002. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=342182 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.342182


Harvilla, Rob. "How the Music Industry Died: Steve Knopper's Appetite for Self-Destruction." Village Voice 06 Jan 2990 1-2. 21 Feb 2009 .

Jobs, Steve. "Thoughts on Music." Apple 06 Feb 2007 21 Feb 2009 .

Knopper, Steve. "RIAA WIll Keep On Suing." Rolling Stone 09 Jun 2005 21 Feb 2009 .

Lawrence Lessig, The Vision for the Creative Commons: What are We and Where are We Headed? Free Culture, in Open Content Licensing: Cultivating the Creative Commons, Brian Fitzgerald, ed., Sydney: Sydney University Press, 2007.
(Can be found here)

Tehranian, John,Infringement Nation: Copyright Reform and the Law/Norm Gap(2007). Utah Law Review, Forthcoming; Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2007-46; U of Utah Legal Studies Paper No. 08-20. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1029151

Free Download

While doing a bit of research I came across this link to Lawrence Lessig's book Code. This is an update to his original book. It was created through a collaborative wiki, and then edited by Lessig himself. Don't worry this isn't stealing. It's available for free on his web site.