Take a Deep Breath.

Why the FBI might soon cut off your Internet
WHAT? Oh, stupid alarmist headline writers.

The FBI is NOT shutting off anyone's internet connection. The "DNS Changer" Trojan goes into your system settings and modifies your DNS settings to connect with a server operated by the BadGuys any time you enter a web page. (this is bad) The BadGuys have been caught and the FBI has been operating the BadDNS servers as legitimate DNS points under the provisions of a court order. (this is good) The court order will expire on March 8th and the FBI will no longer be able to provide DNS servers at the address used by people who are still infected by the trojan. So your DNS lookups will fire off into the ether and never get a response.

Gizmodo:The FBI has a court order allowing it to set up temporary replacement DNS servers so that those with infected computers or networks can get the worm off of their systems. The court order, however, expires on March 8th. Unless that order gets extended, anybody who hasn't cleaned up their act before it expires, might get cut off from the Internet altogether.

FBI:
As part of that order, the defendant’s rogue DNS servers have been replaced with legitimate ones. Internet Systems Consortium (“ISC”), a not-for-profit entity, was appointed by the court to act as a third-party receiver for a limited period of 120 days during which time it will administer the replacement DNS servers. Although the replacement DNS servers will provide continuity of Internet service to victims, those replacement servers will not remove the Malware from the infected computers.

If this happens to you, your internet might appear to stop working on march 8th, but all you need to do is point it at an active DNS server to make it go. (just like always.) That first article makes it sound like the FBI is digging up the wire in your front yard to keep you from spreading the virus to others (which would be a serious problem and gigantic lawsuit)

You can go here: http://dcwg.org or here: https://forms.fbi.gov/check-to-see-if-your-computer-is-using-rogue-DNS for instructions on checking your settings, but I doubt you've got it unless you install really sketchy codecs on your machine.

Between this IP...	... and this IP
77.67.83.1	77.67.83.254
85.255.112.1	85.255.127.254
67.210.0.1	67.210.15.254
93.188.160.1	93.188.167.254
213.109.64.1	213.109.79.254
64.28.176.1	64.28.191.254

You should go ahead and change your DNS to Google's Public DNS anyway though, cause it's faster than the ones your ISP provides and the numbers are SUPER easy to remember:

http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns/

Do We Need Data Privacy Laws?

• Your Internet data: more like Redcoats living in your home or black gold in the ground?

Holy crap these people are morons.  The 3rd amendment, really?  That's not really my go-to amendment for supporting arguments about the right to privacy; and shouldn't the modern interpretation be that soldiers can't use your WiFi without consent?  It's about about having to afford agents of the state with accommodations in peacetime.  Collecting information about you, well that seems more up the search and seizure alley to me.

But none of that really matters at all because we're not discussing constitutional limitations of the government, we're talking about private companies potentially using information about individuals without consent; and companies are not bound by constitution, they are bound by legislation.

So we move on to Rep. Marsha Blackburn, corporate advocate, who thinks your personal information is akin to a natural resource.  She thinks we should "allow our free market to explore this natural resource and learn to commercialize it, protect it, and respect it."  Uh... the free market hasn't really been so great about creating sustainable cycles of use and stewardship when it comes to the natural resources it depends on.  More like exploit, monetize and move on.  If she read up on The Tragedy Of The Commons she might observe that most companies participate in a land grab to box out competitors and aren't so big on communal use of public property for public good.  Not that they should be; they're entities designed to funnel money into the hands of their shareholders.  They're not some kind of representative agency created to protect the interests of its citizens.

"Why should government be the decision maker?"

*snap* *snap*  Marsha!  Over here!  Pay ATTENTION.  We created the government as an agent to represent its people and protect their natural rights from being violated.  In nature man's right to life, liberty, and property are in danger from other men.  And since "we" cleverly decided that corporations are people too, the government needs to protect us from them too.

So, jumping back to your terrible analogy of user information as a natural resource; this isn't some undersea oilfield in US territorial waters where bureaucrats can exchange drilling rights for coke and Bj's.  This is more like the natural gas fields underneath people's homes in New York state, it technically belongs to someone else even if they're not using it right now.  

Companies need to get permission by individually offering property owners enticements of cash and lies.  What representative Blackburn is suggesting would make slant drilling the standard, where companies try to siphon off as much product as they can without the actual owners physically cutting them off.  It's not stealing if there's just no laws that mention it.

I understand that there's a large grey area in the arena of intellectual property like this and data about me may not technically belong to me.  For instance, street planners may survail traffic patterns and the fact that I use a certain street twice a day could be included in that summary.  That sounds pretty reasonable in an aggregate analysis, but it starts to sound a little creepy if the study records my individual license plate number or has enough stations in town to record my individual movements with a certain accuracy.  But such is the case with publicly observable facts and information, we'll need to work through as a society to decide what types of surveillance clash with a reasonable expectation of privacy.  Some methods will probably end up being technically legal but socially unacceptable, while we might decide to flat out ban others.

Separate from public facts is private data accessible only to specific entities, only through a special or business relationship.  This could be information your utility generates about you as a result of the service they provide.   (location, call history, data usage, browser history, power consumption, payment habits)  It's private information that many of us would think twice before actively divulging in a corporate survey, but in many cases is being compiled without the user's knowledge or express permission.  This intimate data becomes available to the company as a side-effect of the user's service.

I imagine a tenant-landlord situation where, as a result of living in the apartment, the occupant can unknowingly disclose information about himself to the renter.  Some of the incidental data may seem innocuous like what time someone goes to work in the morning, while other potential information would be very sensitive and gross invasions of privacy to have collected and stored.  

As much as I distrust industry in general to use private data responsibly, I'm equally wary of the idiots discussing the issues above.  They're the ones that are supposed to have a firm enough grasp on the concept to write the rules that protect those of us not savvy enough to protect themselves.

Real Names On The Internets.

Some people are getting a little uppity cause Google said "Hey guys can we all just put down our real names on Google Plus?"  Yeah, I've got a pseudonym or two that I'm known to employ, so I completely understand the appeal of writing something up and sending it all over the world without feeling like some pissed-off ogre will come knocking at your door.  That's the beauty of anonymous speech and I think it's an important part of the Internet and life in general.  But I don't agree that anonymous interactions are appropriate in every possible corner of the Internet.  Here's an article that seems to think it's being cheated out of something by Google's social networking reboot.

• InformationWeek: 5 Reasons Google+'s Name Policy Fails

For the TL;DR crowd:

#1: I will be really mean to you because I know who you are.

#2: I won't say offensive things because I'm afraid of what you will think.

#3: I will find loopholes.

#4: I have confused privacy with anonymity.

#5: I noticed that other services are different.

I know, I know, I'm taking Google's side again.  And mostly I don't care about the issue, but it does make it easier to figure out if I know someone or not (you ever try to look back through your mid-90's AIM contact list and remember who each SN is?)  Maybe it's cause I'm almost 30 and I enjoy organizing my address book, but I like having a reliable list of contacts at my disposal with addresses and phone numbers, heck even job titles.  It took me like 2 years to figure out that Jeff was "Clark Griswald" on FB for some reason.  If you wanna share things publicly as karebear24 that's fine, there's still twitter and wordpress and digg but I see Google+ more as an auto-updated Rolodex contact card than a soapbox/megaphone for faux-lebrities trying to shoehorn more eyeballs onto their egos like most of these tech analysts want it to be.  You don't like it, fine don't use it.  Frankly I'll be perfectly happy if G+ never takes off enough that local news stations are begging me to Circle them on the Googles.

Check this dude out.

If I were a pelican I too would sit on the pier waiting for fishermen to feed me their catch.  Fun fact: the pelican's distinctive bill and crazy ass neck area are an evolutionary advancement designed to make tourists take pictures of them.

We're About Done Here.

So it seems like some of my thoughts might get passed to someone who can decide to pass them to someone else if they want. Consumerism in action! I also got a call this afternoon from another representative who wanted me to reiterate my problem verbally. I declined since the last rep indicated that my request had been fulfilled. I've gotta say that they certainly had lots of people responding to me fairly quickly, if not completely in the manner I'd hoped. Maybe Sprint is aware there could be some pushback and wants to alleviate people's concerns and complaints.

I think I showed unprecedented restraint not ripping into the various, irrelevant, repetitious and often essentially meaningless ad copy each of these representatives is apparently required to insert into their replies. Lets look at some now, shall we?

3G Customers benefit just as much as 4G users when purchasing the HTC EVO with the $10 Premium Data Fee.

Uh, no. You just said in the prior sentence that 4G customers get faster data speeds. That is a benefit that 3G customers don't get.

The embedded Premium Services allow you to do more than ever before within the 3G Network.

I really have no idea what an embedded Premium service is, so it's hard to argue about. But I'm pretty sure you don't either.

You can take an 8 Megapixal Video and stream directly to the internet.

Uh, not at the upload speeds I hit using 3G. Also I'm not sure 8 MP video is a thing; isn't video quality measured by resolution and compression? 720p video uses 0.92 MP

Sprint is extending the $10 Premium Data Add-On to all smartphone activations and upgrades beginning 1/30/11!

Why do you have an exclamation mark there? That's not good news. 'hey guys, super news, we're raising your rent 14% next month!'

Rather than imposing limits and overage charges on data plans for wireless phones as competitors have done, Sprint is extending the $10 Premium Data Add-on to all smartphone activations and upgrades beginning 1/30/11.

Sweet molasses, I just got a wicked case of deja vu. No, wait you actually just said the second half of that statement in the previous sentence. Glad you decided to take another stab at it in a more somber tone. And, yes, instead of waiting to see if I could possibly ever go over the 5GB allotment that doesn't apply to me anyway (hint: I'm never going to use 5GB in a month while I still have wired internet) you decided to preemptively charge a $10 overage fee every single month. Now that's service!

The $10 add-on is necessary on smartphones because these devices on average use 10x more data than an average feature phone.

Here's an advanced math lesson for you. 10 * unlimited = unlimited. If you can't handle some folks calling your bluff on an unlimited plan, maybe you shouldn't be selling it to them. Also, I've averaged 7.6 MB of data use per day over the past 6 months with a smart phone. Lets ignore how far under INFINITE MB that is, and look at how much less than the 170.6MB per day a feature phone would have to use to hit the 5GB cap. It's 22.26 TIMES LESS data than a feature phone is allowed to use, not ten times more.

This Premium Data pack is for unlimited data usage while in 3G/4G Sprint network and also for the rich data experience that smartphones provide whether in 3G or 4G Sprint network.

I'm tempted to declare this nonsense and move on, but lets break it down. 'Premium data is for unlimited data usage and rich data experience.' Again, I'm not sure what rich data usage is or how it's different, but given the option I'd pick unlimited over rich. And I already had unlimited without the premium pack.

This $10.00 Premium Data Pack ensure maximum utilization of all the features on smartphones.

Nope. Standing over my shoulder and making sure I open every app installed (even those crap apps I can't uninstall) would ensure maximum utilization of features.

Anyway, I'm getting tired of making the same point over and over again, so I'll probably just drop it. The machine wins. But come on, you have to admit that selling a more unlimited data plan is as silly as extra virgin olive oil.

Success?

Thank you for your reply.

As a smartphone user, Sprint provides you with the best overall value
and an unlimited Premium Data experience over the Sprint network for
just $10 per month. Together with our Everything Data Plans with Any
Mobile, Anytime starting at $69.99, you can save up to $40 a month
compared to our leading competitors.

With Premium Data, you can fully engage in all the advanced features of
your smartphone without the worry of exceeding data usage caps while on
the Sprint network.  This Premium Data pack is for unlimited data usage
while in 3G/4G Sprint network and also for the rich data experience that
smartphones provide whether in 3G or 4G Sprint network.  This $10.00
Premium Data Pack ensure maximum utilization of all the features on
smartphones.

I have also forwarded your feedback regarding the publication to the
appropriate department so that they can look into this matter.

Thank you again for contacting us.

Sincerely,
Ronald L
Sprint

Lets See If That Does It.

Michael,
It's good to know that the plan descriptions on the Sprint web site are accurate, thanks. However that displaces the only difference I could discern between the normal data plan and the premium data plan. Premium data does not refer to 4G and it does not refer to unlimited usage caps. I'm going to assume it does not refer to reduced latency or packet loss. So I'm at a loss as to how this offering is value added.

Maybe this discrepancy is grammar based. I've been assuming that premium in your usage is an adjective describing the data available to my device. However, since I can detect no additional value an adjective would convey, it sounds like Sprint means to use this term as a noun.

premium [ˈpriːmɪəm]
n
(Business / Commerce) an amount paid in addition to a standard rate, price, wage, etc.; bonus
adj.
Of superior quality or value: premium gasoline.

If this is the case I'd suggest rephrasing your publications and paperwork to refer to the "data premium" instead. That indicates an extra fee on top of the usual rate for unlimited data. Although the user's device is apparently the metric you're using to charge the premium so maybe "device premium" or "smartphone premium" would be more appropriate. These devices are even value added from standard feature phones, so you could use "premium device premium" if you wanted! These are all good.

I'm also curious whether sprint has taken into account all the features users can take advantage of with advanced handsets. The cameras and processors are listed as reasons that users will use more 3G bandwidth than their feature phone counterparts. However if using a larger portion of the 3G back-haul system is a rationale for a device premium, shouldn't specs that potentially lower traditional data consumption be justification for discount? I'm referring to the WiFi and WiMax radios in these devices that can ease the burden of over-taxed infrastructure by making use of high bandwidth and non-Sprint systems.

Look, I know all these semantic arguments aren't really going convince you to drop the new fee Sprint is assessing. And I'm actually fine with paying what I pay for service. (I wouldn't complain if it was less, but who would?) But I find it insulting that Sprint thinks they can raise their prices and not admit it in their advertisements. If you need more money to roll out 4G nationwide, that's fine. If you've realized that demand is increasing for smart phones and decided to charge more in response, that's fine too. But I do have a problem with selling the same service for more money while pretending that it also has more value.

There's nothing that we'll resolve over the phone that we can't resolve via written word. I know you don't make the policies or write the advertising copy. I just wanted to share some thoughts with you as a fairly well informed customer. (If it's confusing to me, my mom isn't even going to try.) This poorly clarified fee makes it harder for me to recommend Sprint for its billing transparency, though I will continue to do so based on your service and products.

If you still want to speak with me that's fine, though I feel I've articulated myself fairly well and won't have much to add. Please just mark me down in the "customer would prefer less marketing and more substance" column and send it up the ladder. There must be more consumers that feel the same way, I just wanted to mention that I agree.

Thanks for your time,

Jeadly

More Confusing.

Thank you for your reply.

I understand your concern regarding the data usage limitation on the 3G
network.

Please know that the unlimited 3G data is available with the plan
Everything Data Share 1500 active on the account and there is no 5GB cap
on this plan. I apologize for the breakdown in communication at the
previous interaction.

There is the 5GB data cap on the connection card plans Sprint currently
offering.

Effective January 31, 2011, the $10.00 data pack will be applicable on
all the Smartphone. Sprint is extending the $10 Premium Data Add-On to
all smartphone activations and upgrades beginning 1/30/11! Rather than
imposing limits and overage charges on data plans for wireless phones as
competitors have done, Sprint is extending the $10 Premium Data Add-on
to all smartphone activations and upgrades beginning 1/30/11. The $10
Premium Data Add-on, previously charged only on HTC EVO 4G, HTC EVO
Shift 4G and Samsung Epic 4G devices, will now apply to activations and
upgrades of all smartphones.

The $10 add-on is necessary on smartphones because these devices on
average use 10x more data than an average feature phone. Even with this
charge, Sprint customers still enjoy the best value in wireless.

I have also arranged the call for you to discuss the issue in details.
You will receive a call from Sprint toll free number (888) 211 4727 by
one of our specialists within the next 24 hours.

We value your business and appreciate the opportunity to answer your
questions. Please reply to this email or visit sprint.com if we can be
of assistance.

Sincerely,
Michael K.
Sprint

My Retort.

Hi Mark,
Thanks for your reply. Your list of features seems fairly analogous to the description of three benchmarks I'd mentioned from the website.
1) fast processor 2) nice camera 3) big screen
I understand that the processor may power data-based Android applications, and the user could upload high-megapixel images, and that the screen can displayhigher resolution web video. (You also note that the EVO is capable
of outputting HDMI video, which wouldn't effect data use totals unless
you're suggesting that they could stream down HD quality video over a
3G connection.) But the presence of these abilities on a device does
not equate their constant employment.

I was pleased to see you mention that the Premium data fee would
remove the 5GB data cap when connected to the 3G network. This is indeed a difference between just "data" and "premium data". And in
fact I'd forgotten that Sprint imposes a 5GB monthly data restriction
on its phones. I can see on the "plans" portion of the sprint.com
shop page that the Wireless Broadband plans list 5GB in the "monthly
usage" column. It's a bit odd that the "Everything Data" and
"Everything Data Family" Plans don't feature a similar column. They
do however feature this text description that could be misinterpreted
as mobile data without a monthly cap.

"Our Everything Data plans give you unlimited data, messages and calls
to any mobile, anytime while on the Sprint Network."

It is not in fact $20 for unlimited data, it is an unlimited SMS, MMS,
mobile to mobile calls plan with a 5GB cap on other data. It costs
$30 for a premium plan with unlimited data, messages and mobile to
mobile calls. That was my misunderstanding of the stated details.
With these new data-hungry devices I understand not wanting
unsuspecting customers to run up against data caps which make their
features unusable, or worse to be charged overages. However I would
think opting-in to truly unlimited data would be a per user decision,
rather than blanket by phone model. This is the case with minute
plans across all phone models, with options ranging from 0 to 200 all the way through 3,000 or unlimited minutes. This would be like Sprint
only offering an unlimited minute plan on a phone that features
high-fidelity audio hardware.

If you run through the numbers a user would have to send and receive
over 170 MB of data each day on his mobile device to run afoul of the
(admittedly generous) 5GB cap. While this may be feasible on phones streaming 720p video, I think it's unfair to assume all your customers
are amateur videographers. I've attached the graph of my personal
data experience which includes an EVO 4G for all months and a Hero
from June through November, replaced by an Epic 4G in December. As
you can see, we have trouble cracking 350 MB across two devices most months. This is embarrassingly far from our 10GB limit and I promise
to try harder in the future.I understand from the footnote that these data do not include
transactions conducted through the Clearwire WiMax network, but I can
assure you that those would be minimal additions. I usually only
enable my 4G radio when in DC or Baltimore to run the FCC speed test
application. Frankly the fact that 4G data isn't included leads me to
postulate that Sprint is unable to track 4G usage. It's strange to
think, but that seems like a more plausible reason to coerce me into
an unlimited data tier than worries about my 1GHz processor and 5MP
camera conspiring against my historical usage trends.

I guess from a consumer perspective I'd appreciate if you would
highlight the 5GB cap on normal data plans and truly unlimited data
usage for smartphones on the premium data plan. To market something
as limitless when in fact it has clearly set limitations dilutes an
offering that actually delivers on the same promises.

A Reply From Sprint.

Thank you for your reply.

I understand your concern regarding the $10 Premium Data Fee with
smartphones.

HTC Evo & Samsung Epic ’s features are custom made for data-loving
customers. These data-rich features are available to Samrtphones
customers regardless if they are in a 3G or 4G network. This will remove
the 5GB data cap when you are on the 3G network. Plus faster data speeds
if you live in or travel to one of the available 4G markets.

“3G Customers benefit just as much as 4G users when purchasing the HTC
EVO with the $10 Premium Data Fee. The embedded Premium Services allow
you to do more than ever before within the 3G Network. You can take an 8
Megapixal Video and stream directly to the internet, or stream a feature
length film to your HD TV. You can perform complex video conferencing
for yourself or a group. It takes social media to a whole new level.”

With Premium Data, you can fully engage in all the advanced features on
your HTC EVO Epic phones without the worry of exceeding data usage caps
while on the Sprint network, including:

* 1GHz Snapdragon processor improves all aspects of the device
performance: applications will launch faster, navigating on the device
is quicker; the multimedia experience gives you real-time communication.


* Dual cameras: An 8 megapixel primary camera with flash; and a video
camera great for streaming. Its HDMI capabilities allow you to record
and output HD-quality video to your HD-capable TV.

* 4.3'' display, one of the largest available on a smart phone,
maximizes your web browsing and video watching experience.

I have also arranged a call for further clarifications. One of our
representatives will call you within the next 48 hours from Sprint toll
free number (888) 211 4727.

We value your business and appreciate the opportunity to answer your
questions. Please reply to this email or visit sprint.com if we can be
of assistance.

Sincerely,
Marc N.
Sprint

Let Me Lay This Out For You.

Hi John,
I had just wrote up some thoughts on the general marketing of Sprint's
smartphone "Premium" charge while looking at various account details
today. I found two forms on the site that wouldn't process and
decided to punt instead of searching around for another contact page.
If you could pass along the following comments to someone who deals
with data plans or marketing or smartphones, I'd be very appreciative.
Thanks for your help,
Jeadly

----

I'm looking at the "analyze my account" page and understand everything
listed. However I would like to share some thoughts on the "Premium
Data" section listed after "data" and "4G" items. I agreed to the $10
additional data fee on my current phone in recognition of the
additional radio and 4G-like service it is able to take advantage of.
To now change that stance and say that 4G data is free, but that there
is some other ethereal premium data service, is disingenuous I feel.
There is in fact nothing "premium" about the data services I am
consuming, if not for their higher speeds due to an occasional 4G
connection. In reality you have classed my device as a
high-data-consumption device and are charging more because I am more
likely to use large amounts of data access. It is a misnomer to term
this segment "Premium" data consumers, when in fact it refers to an
amount of data. The crux of the issue is that you are selling
"unlimited" data access (an offering which keeps me subscribing to
Sprint) and then decide that certain devices need to pay for "more
unlimited" data access. This is, if you will excuse so crude a
simile, like charging fat people more for the buffet.

This is the help text that is displayed when I click on the "Premium
Data" section mentioned at the beginning:
"This phone can do it all and then some. Because we've boosted your
data experience with this phone's amazing services and features,
you'll need this add-on. Enjoy:
A wicked fast processor to make your apps run smoother and faster on
our Sprint 3G and 4G network
Top quality media experience with oversized screen, high resolution
video and HD recording
High-quality pics to snap and share with friends and family"

This makes little sense and is very offputting. My "data experience"
remains unchanged from my last phone, aside from the WiMax radio,
which is apparently not referred to in premium data. All the items
listed in this section are hardware benchmarks that have the potential
to create large files and make copious use of data. That is, a larger
data amount. I have paid a premium for a new device which connects to
the same data service.

I'm not trying to tell you that it's wrong for smart phone users to
pay more for data service than dumb phone users. I'm saying you
should be more upfront in the plan designations you use. Don't sell
me an unlimited data plan for $25 and then add a mysterious $10
"premium" fee for using more unlimited data. (it would make more
sense if that $10 made the unlimited data faster) If you must, sell
unlimited data for $25 to dumb phones and $35 for smart phones.
That's much less confusing about what we're paying for and what we're
getting. Of course I'd much rather see you disclose the limits that
are in place, either physically or based on policy. If you want users
to pay more when they pass 500 MB per month, say so. And be honest
about the average speeds users can expect, not the theoretical
laboritory speeds that will never happen in practice. I think your
customers will respond much more positively to frank disclosure and
respectful claims of capability than snappy text about "wicked fast
services", infinite resources and intangible premium upgrades.

Contact.

Thank you for contacting Sprint. I am happy to assist you in regards to
your feedback.

I understand your concern about the character limitation in the email
box. You may reply to this email with the details of your concern and
let me assure you also that there will be no character limitation in
reply to this email.

In order to best resolve your issue, a Sprint Care Representative would
like to speak with you personally. You will receive a call from us
within 48 hours at: XXX-XXX-XXXX.

If there is a different number you prefer we call, please reply to this
email. We are looking forward to speaking with you and addressing your
concerns.

We value your business and appreciate the opportunity to answer your
questions. Please reply to this email or visit sprint.com if we can be
of assistance.

Sincerely,
John C.
Sprint

Feedback for Sprint.

Sprint recently decided that the extra $10 fee I'm paying for my 4G phone is not actually for 4G service. It's "Premium data" service. Which is confusing to me since the data is no different than it has always been, with the exception of 4G. I wrote up my thoughts in a, I think, wildly composed and respectful format and attempted to submit them for someone to read. It didn't work. I've found two feedback forms on their site, neither of which will accept my text. One of them says there are illegal characters, and the other has a character limit of 1200. So while I wait for them to answer my feedback about an actual email address to contact I figured I'd put it up here.

>> Form: Ask A Question-Manage
>> Topic: General Inquiry
>> SUB Topic: General Inquiry
>> =============================================================
>> Original Question:
>> Question: I wish to submit feedback that is greater than 1200
> characters
>> in length. Is there a contact email address on this site that is not
> a
>> limited web form?
>> =============================================================

So, I guess I haven't posted in a while.

And there's a reason for that.  Buzz steals all my snark, and there's none left for you.  I know, it sucks.  But there it is.  Here's a second hand whiff, maybe you'll get a contact high.  Also, I've had three travel mugs of coffee in the last three and a half hours.  Is that too much?  I think that's too much.  My brain thinks that's too much.  Screw him, I'm gonna get some coffee.

LW - Google Reader - Public

"You know the drill—I, for one, welcome our new female snake-Jesus overlords"

Female Boa constrictor reproduces without help from males - Boing Boing
There is, perhaps, nothing terribly shocking about a female snake, placed in an enclosure with four male snakes, giving birth to two litters of baby snakes. But what if those babies carry only their mother's genetic material? Parthenogenesis—breeding without the, you know, breeding—has been documented in only a small handful of vertebrate species, but it does happen. However, usually, it take...

RS - Those must have been some ugly snake dudes if she decided to go solo.Nov 3

KJ - I wonder if these snakes are sterile, like mules are supposed to be...Nov 3

LW - except mules are a cross between two species, which is why they are sterile. these are only half of one species ;-) although with that weird WW sex chromosome, i don't think they count as male OR female.8:46 am

Jeadly - Schrödinger's snake would be way more complicated than his cat. There could be a live snake, a dead snake, or a box with infinite snakes... Also, I am less okay with a box of snakes than cats.8:51 am

KJ - Just don't let those infinite snakes out of the box in Heisenberg's house. Then you'd have a REALLY big problem! :-P8:54 am

RS - I don't know what's worse, that you guys are talking about nerdy subjects like Shrodinger and Heisenberg, or that I'm fully aware of the references.8:56 am

LW - k - haha, funny. 
r - we're all nerds, get over it.9:08 am

Jeadly - Crap, now I'm trying to decide if I'd rather know where a snake is or which way it's lunging.9:09 am

KJ - Don't worry about it. Just follow Pauli's advice stay off the ground floor. They'll be there first before coming upstairs. Unless of course, the snakes get excited and jump up to the next floor. But chances are they won't be there long...9:27 am

KJ- Excuse me, Hund's advice...9:29 am

Jeadly - I like Pauli's reassurance better; there can't possibly be infinite snakes in your house. We're talking like a million or two - max... Unless there's some kind of photon snakes, which I spose is pretty reasonable considering the context. Damn.9:48 am

LW - uh, i think this is getting a little out of hand.10:08 am

Jeadly - What part of infinite self-fertilizing unobservable light-snakes is "out of hand"? 

Don't Put That In Your Mouth.

I read the Food Inc book last year and just finished the movie recently. Its really hard not to feel motivated to change the system and simultaneously helpless to do so.



Although it occurs to me that one of the easiest ways to change the top food producing companies is to shop at Walmart. If Walmart's customers demand responsible organic food, then Walmart will demand the same of its suppliers. And even the largest GMO grower in the world can't afford to ignore Walmart.

One of the biggest messages to take home here is that you need to pay more for your food.

Cut the Crap!

Check this business out:

I just went by the Quiznos (Not the good one, that's closed. The one that seems to survive only by under-staffing with employees that work exclusively in the human equivalent of 7 inch vinyl played at 33 RPM.) to use my two for one coupon when this nifty little bag caught my eye at the register. Its a smaller sized tote bag that nicely fits two subs without exce

ssive wiggle room. Now, I'm not normally one for impulse purchases, but I've thought on numerous occasions that the plastic bag they give me for a sandwich is fleetingly useful at best. Though I hesitate to eschew a bag altogether because, frankly, their subs are known to leak; especially since they've taken to not wrapping them but sliding a small paper bag over the length. So BAM! for 99 cents I've got myself a reusable sammich bag, I won't feel bad about throwing out plastic containers 10 minutes old, and my normal totes won't get all juiced up inside. Win-freaking-win.

Oh, also I get a free soda every time I bring it back to Quiznos. So there's that for you cynics with your cynicism and your loathing. How do you live with yourselves?

Update: I'm not trying to say that Quizno's is the best company in the world or anything, but at least they made an effort. That said, I think I may need to smack someone with a pickled herring. In the course of trying to find official publication of the reusable sack program I found this nugget on the "Be Green" Quizno's site:

If you can't read the tiny asterisk footnote on "biodegradable" and "compostable" let me reprint it so the hilarity isn't lost.

"Not biodegradable in a landfill. Not compostable in a home compost pile or device. Requires special facilities which may not exist in your area."

What. The. Hell. How did you geniuses come up with a paper material that will not break down in the two most likely places it'll wind up? Its paper for god's sake!

Making the Most Out of a Bad Situation.

I got an update from GoDaddy in the emails today. Apparently it isn't all champaign and booby commercials over there.

Dear [HAPLESS CUSTOMER],

On July 1, 2010, VeriSign®, the registry for .COM and .NET, will increase prices – .COM will go up 7%, and .NET by 10%.

The increase will be passed to registrars like Go Daddy and then, unfortunately, to consumers like you.

As of July 1, we will be forced to raise registration and renewal* prices for these two popular top-level domains.

If you wish to avoid this price increase, you can renew your domain names by June 30 and add another year to your current expiration dates. You have the option to register or renew for multiple years and lock in long-term savings. Of course, should you have any questions, please give us a call at 1-480-505-8821.

Thanks as always for being a Go Daddy customer.

Sincerely,

Bob Parsons

CEO and Founder

GoDaddy.com

Oh no, Bob! I can't believe that they're doing this to you! Of course I agree that you should also raise your prices to make up for an arbitrary supplier cash demand. Its almost extortion! Shameful! I mean, I bet your profit margins are razor thin as it is; I've been seeing less and less of your ridiculous, condescending and mildly offensive advertisements on the telio-vision. Hmmm... let me see if I can find some contact information for Verisign and ream them out good for what they're doing to you.

• https://investor.verisign.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=431292

Oh. I see. They're raising prices to fortify, scale and secure a global infrastructure that's been 100% operational for the last 11 years. That's kinda impressive actually. What do you do again? Oh, yeah you're a middle man, taking a cut off the top for something that I could do myself fairly easily if not for the system you've positioned yourself to exploit. They also list the price increases they'll be instituting. .COM domains will rise from $6.86 to $7.34. A difference of 48 cents, or 6.99%. And .NET domains will go from $4.23 to $4.65; or 42 cents and 9.92%. Looks like your story adds up just fine.

Hang on a second... What increases will be "unfortunately" passed to consumers like me? (Consumers like me? I'm a consumer like me!) You didn't mention the changes in your rates specifically, so should I assume you'll just bump the renewal by 48 and 42 cents appropriately, like any trustworthy intermediary would? (your prices already seem fairly arbitrary; it'd be nice to see a break-down of the various fees, taxes, charges and over-charges like the phone companies are nice enough to mail me) Or maybe you mean that we'll see 7 and 10 percent changes in the prices we already pay. Lets see, before the 12 cent ICANN fee you'll renew my .COM domain for one year at 9.82, and you'll give me my .NET domain for 9.69 a year.

I really appreciate the special pricing by the way, I must be one of your best bros for you to lower them from the 10.69 and 12.99 normal rates for no apparent reason at all. Lets not even mention the prospect of you raising these normal rates by 7 and 10%. (Also, 13 dollars? You're charging 13 dollars for something that costs you $4.30? No wonder you can pay a million dollars to show people chimps jumping on trashcans.)

Okay, so if you raised your prices (and your markup) by the percents you mentioned (which I'm sure you wouldn't) .COM's would go up to 10.80, or 98 cents more and .NET would hit 10.65, 96 cents more expensive per year. Why in the world would you want to use someone else's price change to justify tagging your customers for an extra 50 cents per domain per year when you are making absolutely no changes to service and it costs you literally nothing?

• GoDaddy Regisrar Info

Oh, you passed 36 million registered domains this year and it looks like over 3/4 of them are .COM and .NET variety. So +3/4 * 36,100,000 is around 28,000,000 times 50 cents is FOURTEEN MILLION DOLLARS you could collect from your loyal customers every year while blaming the actual service provider and not contributing anything else yourself.

You've got to hand it to them, those weasels certainly are making the most out of an unfortunate rate hike. At best they're using the upcoming increase to drive long-term sales now, before the crushing hike. I really wish I could rent out Jon Stuart's "GO FUCK YOURSELVES" dancers, but taking my business elsewhere might have to make due in this case. I've had this article bookmarked since February maybe now I'll actually sit down and do it.

• http://smarterware.org/5117/how-to-ditch-godaddy-redux

Wasn't the Web Always Social? (now we just know people's names)

So facebook is launching new features. Too bad I never really bothered to learn the old features, that might make it harder to appreciate these. The jist I get so far is that sites can add a little 'like' Facebook button so that people can click on it and it gets added to their Facebook 'feed' and shared with their friends. Okay, that seems a lot like all the other sharing buttons that showed up on "web 2.0" (shudder) sites a while ago. You know: digg, stumbleupon, twitter, technorati, del.icio.us... there's more.

There's probably more to it than just pasting another share button on every site out there. I think I read that you can see a list of items on the site that your friend liked. Okay. Forgive my lack of excitement. This smacks of the same feeling I got when Apple announced its new iAd platform recently. GREAT, tremendous, revolutionary new features... for companies, but really not much change or improvement on business as usual for the users they're excited about leveraging.

I guess maybe that's not true. For people who use Facebook to share articles and web pages with their friends, this is a streamlined improvement over copying the url, opening a tab for facebook and pasting the link in their stream. But for the rest of us it seems like just another button littering the edges of every post. (at least on sites that add it)

I wonder why every site needs to code Facebook integration for this type of interaction. Its the user who wants to connect Facebook with the site, why can't they add something (maybe a plugin) to their browser that enables this for any site they're viewing. Then they wouldn't be at a loss when they happen across a site that hasn't rewritten its code to accommodate Facebook. This would also enable users to choose any service they want to share items of import with their followers; it could be a blog, maybe a twitter, a google reader stream, whatever they want. And we wouldn't need to add 200 little thumbnail logos everywhere.

But maybe that's my problem with how Facebook (or twitter) is approaching the "social web" to begin with. They obviously envision themselves as the central hub around which all information is traded. They can do this because we've all given them our social maps and they haven't given us a way to take them back (or somewhere else) so we stay. But the Internet isn't a wheel in which all spokes lead to Facebook; its more like a "web" where people and sites interact directly or through various proxies. There's no need to send everything back to a central repository.

Sometimes it seems like some people (and companies) forget that there is an Internet underneath all these social sites. They rush to create their pages and claim space on Facebook's internet, forgetting that they own real URLs and real websites that don't need to hook into Facebook. You could send an email to your friend instead of a FB message. You could use one of hundreds of instant messaging clients instead of Facebook's. You could share your 'status' and 'feed' updates via RSS, or Atom on countless publishing platforms instead of Facebook and Twitter that are dominating media coverage.

In fact, the greatest single impetus for joining Facebook is to interact with the people on Facebook. They've introduced a lot of people to useful communication concepts but kept them in a subset of the real system. A subset where we all have to be on the same site to exchange information with each other and users on a different site are out of the loop. That's great for its users, as long as everyone they want to interact with keeps joining, but its really great for growing Facebook.

This is coming across as awfully anti-Facebook, which I'm not. It is a useful-looking site for a variety of users and aggregates Facebook data very nicely. I am against everyone in the world using, or needing to use Facebook. It seems very reasonable to me that I could use one site on the Internet, where I have a profile and a feed etc, to interact with the profiles of contacts at Facebook, sharing articles, commenting on stati, sending messages and invites, whatever else you kids do on the Facebook.

It seems reasonable because that's how the rest of the internet works. You can send email from yahoo to earthlink or aol or bob'semail.com and it works just fine because they all conform to a public standard. Its not some API that links back to one giant database owned by a single company. Imagine how amazing it would be for Facebook's users if suddenly everyone using a social platform could communicate. It would be as important as connecting together telephone exchanges around the world. But as far as I can see Facebook is not interested in improving their users' experience in a way that would reduce the rate of new inductees funneling in. They're more focused on developing an API that channels social information that's happening on the Internet into their own private system.

So this is a bit of a plea, no you don't have to stop using Facebook if you love it so much. Just be aware of what's really going on behind the scenes. Technology is in the state it is today because of diversity, competition, interoperability and consumer choice. I'm wary of a company who strives for a captive user base. Make no mistake the move to place a Facebook tentacle on every website is a land grab. They acknowledge that their users frequent other sites to read and interact, but they want a way to bring it all back home to their own constantly hungry data collection centers. So far they haven't decided to monetize this information in truly userous ways, but some day they will and you'll discover that data you thought was yours is actually theirs.

• Zuckerberg: “We Are Building A Web Where The Default Is Social”

More Options is More Confusing.

And the app store fragmentation continues. I imagine as the platform splinters apple will have a harder time holding everything together as it works now. I've felt the sting of alienation as their focus moved swiftly past my year old device when operating systems and hardware changed. Apps take advantage of microphones and bluetooth and cameras, things that my hardware was now suddenly lacking; somehow I didn't miss them when I bought it.

Apple's own prolific gadget releases are at odds with the concept of a simple computer that just plain works great. Each release is billed as the GREATEST THING EVER, and so it is. Until 6 months from now when the next GTE comes out and the people who want a simple experience that just plain works need to get that one.

It will be more complicated to write a piece of software that runs on all these different devices; moreso when apple releases iPhone 4 and iPad 2. And either publishers will put in more work and charge everyone more money (plus apple's 30% slice), or they'll leave behind the slackers who haven't upgraded their device in the last 8 months. The article is right, 99 cents seems an appropriate price for an "app"; maybe even $1.99. No sweat to shrug off if it was an ill advised purchase. But when you're pushing 10 or 15 bucks, that my friend is a full blown program. Frankly I'd rather have real programs on a real computer; though ironically enough most of my real computer software is open source. Real programs tend to be especially pricey if you're going to get the next GTE and have to re-buy all the apps that get re-released for it.

I was shocked at how much more cash I gave apple after I bought my iPod touch. They make it so easy and gratifying to fork over time and time again. You probably won't notice for 6 months, but iPad buyers prepare to spend as much on apps and media as you did for your device, possibly much, much more. And make sure to relish the early adopter rush and special sparkle your iPad has right now, because I promise apple is doing its best to wash it away.

Editorial: iPad app prices are out of control and will kill us all

(Now) Open Letter to Comcast (douche-bags)

See what you made me do Comcast? You made me start blagging again. Your fault.

Here's the "Customer Feedback" I spent about 40 minutes trying to submit and actually had to have a "Chat Representative" tell me how to find. (just so you know, it's here: http://www.comcast.com/customers/feedback/default.cspx ) You mofoes better go take some website structure design classes or something.

I am furious after trying to use your website and phone lines to lodge a complaint about your digital cable transition. I was angry when I turned on my tv and was informed that I would no longer receive 80% of the channels I'm paying (too much) for. But after viewing the offerings on your website I am irate. It is very clear that this is a deliberate effort to bilk your customers out more money per month. Where is the limited basic cable (analog) offering that I'm now receiving; no matter how many times more my bill is than its value? This service is worth no more than $15 a month, and less in many markets. How many customers do you suppose will keep paying you three or four times more than your services are worth to them?

I understand what DTV is and why some people may value it over analog sources. I don't want another comcast box, on demand programming or HD channels. I don't want your remote or your DVRs. I want the same lower quality, lower overhead format of the channels I've been paying you to convey for years. You are a conduit, not a hardware vendor. This ploy of forcing your customers to become more entwined and controlled by your vertical monopoly will result in demonstrable backlash. It will start here. I will degrade my service to limited cable or I will cancel it completely. I was paying you for analog signal. If I'd wanted digital TV you wouldn't have had a customer, that stuff is floating all around us. Free as air. Lyman out.

Comcast is very lucky to not be a tenant in my building. Cause I'm pretty sure I'd be throwing tennis balls at his windows and leaving bags of poop in front of the door.

Update:

So I forgot to include the full text of the message displayed on my tv screen for those of you who can't read small words, click on images, or are actually blind. (what? screen readers do text, not images. At least not images without alt tags, ie: all of mine.)

• We have removed features from your service.
• We think your shit is too old.
• Now you have to pay us $5 for every tv you have. Every month.
• We own your ass, bitch.