Mind NOT Blown

Now wait a second.

Slate’s Matt Yglesias purports to tell the tubes that an Idaho man’s lawsuit against Buzzfeed for using one of his photos in one of their made-for-virality posts without his permission is supposed to “kill my faith” in intellectual property law.

The umbrage is there. But my faith in intellectual property law has come out alive.

Yglesias seems to have trouble with photographer Kai Eiselein’s charges of “contributory infringement” against Buzzfeed, since their lifting of his clearly copyrighted photograph from his Flickr account has now been featured on many other websites without his permission and without remuneration. He says this claim is dubious, without really offering any proof. (To be fair, he also knocks Buzzfeed’s claim that their use of his photo is “transformative” and thus allowed under fair use rules as just as dubious. That dubiousness I understand. The dubiousness of the contributory infringement claim I do not.)

Yglesias theorizes about copyright law, but doesn’t explain his reasoning but seems to think the solution lies in creative commons licensing (which is great for folks like Buzzfeed, who obviously don’t want to pay for the photos they use) but not for Eiselein and his ilk, who might possibly want to be paid for the photos they take.

I don’t see much difference between what Buzzfeed does and what Judith Griggs did, and Griggs got a righteous intertubes whacking for what she did. Where’s the rage? Just because a popular website is lifting content without remuneration (and, as far as I can tell, without even offering credit to the artists whose work they’re stealing) does that make it okay?

Others like Andrew Beaujon at Poynter points to “the common etiquette of the internet” not being reflected in intellectual property law. Huh?

Here’s what Beaujon says about Buzzfeed in general, which makes a bit more sense to me (There’s more on the etiquette of the internet remark here as well):

The thing is, Buzzfeed regularly helps itself to photos from other awesome, creative people for sponsored posts. And that sponsored content [Buzzfeed founder Jonah] Peretti told [Guardian writer Heidi] Moore, accounts for “nearly all the company’s revenues,” she writes.

So Buzzfeed gets eyeballs with their viral posts (they’ve had mine from time to time) yet are just plucking stuff from the internet, whether they have permission to use it or not, and, in some cases, is making money off the stuff. No wonder Eiselein is upset, and litigious. (Why, explains at The Guardian; can someone explain to me why I had to go to a UK website to find a first direct quote from Eiselein.)

I’m just as guilty as the next fat person. Even though I make no money with this blog, I do search the internet for images to go along with my posts and use copious amounts of stuff that’s probably copyrighted somewhere. That’s a violation of copyright law; I don’t have to make money when I steal someone else’s stuff to be guilty. That doesn’t make what Buzzfeed is doing right. And they’re getting paid for stealing.

NO! NOT THE FORUMS!

Forget Google – the real scourge of the Internet is the ubiquitously unhelpful Internet forum. 

Anyone who has googled any kind of technical problem knows what I mean: Everyone out there has an answer to your question. Almost. Because your question, despite the commonality of things like campers and video cards, appears to be unique. And what these experts suggest in these forums almost – but not quite – solves your little problem. 

They always want more information and when you provide it, they bring up something else that’s vital – but that they forgot to mention in the first place.

They always assume you know more than you do and when you reveal you don’t, they mock you. 

In short, they’re just like you or I: Morons.

A few years ago, I sought an easier way to empty the fresh water tank of my camper rather than running it through the system into the grey water tank. I didn’t want to have to haul the camper somewhere to dump the fresh water – but it had to go before winter. 

Making an appeal to the camper manual first was futile. Oh, it mentioned a freshwater drain – but merely in passing, on the assumption that I knew where it was. Not so. That is why I turned to the manual – to find out where the drain was. 

I’ll go to the Internet. Surely, someone else must own a model of this mass-manufactured camper and can tell me where the fresh water drain plug is. 

Now, I tend to be a lurker in these forums, based on the silly assumption that since I am not the first to ask such a question, there’s no need to ask it since the answer should already be there. 

So I google. 

And enter the world of camper forums, which like all forums, might as well bear the inscription that hangs above Dante’s version of Hell: Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here. 

Question posed (by someone else): I want to drain the fresh water from my [brand and model of camper exactly like mine] without running it through to the grey water tank. How can I do that? 

Answer: There’s a valve you can open up to drain the fresh water tank directly. 

Question: Great. Can you tell me where it is? 

Answer: It’s by the fresh water tank. 

Question: I’ve looked by the tank. I can’t find it. Can you tell me exactly where it is? 

Answer (by someone else): You don’t know where the valve is? How do you winterize your system without knowing? 

Question: I’ve been running the water through the system to the grey water tank. 

Answer (by another someone else): You don’t have to do that. There’s valve you can open up by the fresh water tank to drain it without running the water to the grey water tank. 

Question: I know that. But I can’t find it. 

Answer: Just open the valve and drain your tank. It’ll save you a lot of time. 

Question: I would, but I can’t find the valve. 

Answer: Well, on [brand and model of camper different from mine] it’s [specific location]. I can’t help you on [your brand of camper]. Look in your manual. But it’s usually by the fresh water tank. 

And so on. 

I may have exaggerated a bit here, but those of you familiar with any kind of forum are nodding your head. You’ve read these kinds of things before. No real helpful answers, but a lot of recrimination. 

I eventually found the drain valve after removing various panels in the camper near the fresh water tank until I spotted and opened the valve. And, in trolltastic fashion, I did not go back to the forums to offer up the exact location of the drain valve in my camper because I no longer needed to know the answer. 

Sometimes, however, people who figure things out do go back to the forum to enlighten the masses. This brings me to the world of technology forums. 

Example: Right now, I’m fighting a mini-battle with a new graphics card that is having a little problem integrating with my computer. I solved one problem on my own the other night, noting that one of the cords from the new power supply I bought to meet the specs of the sound card wasn’t plugged in correctly. Still, there are other issues that right now has the card sitting on my desk. I think I know the path forward, but I turn to the Internet for guidance. 

Problem is, no one seems to have the exact same problem I do – dual monitors blink on and off before Windows boots; I hear no beeps nor have an indication that the computer is doing anything but blinking. 

First come the spec hunters. They want to know details on every component ever attached to your computer. They want to help, of course – one item out of spec can cause big problems (but would not identify, however, a loose connection that allowed, in my case, my computer to function but the card to be starved of power). 

While the spec hunters are chewing on your numbers, in come the fearmongers: Your card might be dead out of the box. Your computer – despite being brand new – might be out of date. You’re using – shudder – Windows 8? 

They’re typically followed by the driver demons, who insist you haven’t installed the proper drivers even though you have – and even though your manufacturer offers you two different ways you can download two different versions of the same driver, identifying both as the latest and greatest. Nevermind that my problems from last night cropped up only after I tried to install the latest drivers. 

They both stir fear until the spec hunters come back and either give a thumbs up/thumbs down to your configuration, then either join the fear mongers or transform themselves into the tubby guru, insisting you try some obscure computer wonk trick to check settings, operate in “safe mode” or some other trick that you, bumbling computer user, have no idea how to tackle. And asking for help will get you a “google it” response which, of course, leads you into another forum where, like the hapless employees at call centers, the spec hunters there ask again for your numbers while the fear mongers lay in wait, hoping to pee in your electronic Cheerios. 

My problem is trust: I have no idea if these people are giving legitimate advice or if they’re purposely trolling the noobz for teh lulz. Given our current Internet culture, both – and everything that falls in between – are possible.

Then come my favorites: The gloriously victorious OPs, who solve their problem by either whacking their computer with a hammer or – and I literally read this one the other night – by pounding their heads on their computer desk until the vibrations magically made everything work just as expected. 

Hoping tonight I turn into one of those (if you’re reading this, it’s because I did eventually succeed. Or not.

Cause, Hey, Free Fembots

NOTE: A blog/shout site I occasionally visit has been taken over by bot commenters, and the sysadmins there don't seem to want to do anything about it. That's fine for me, because, in reading the comments today, I was inspired to pull some of the comments and make free verse poetry out of them.

So understand these poems are all verbatim. I've added no words. Also understand the titles are the names the bots give themselves when they post. Also note the bots want you to go to this site where they sell, above all else, mannequin heads. Like this:

My advice: Don't stare at her face too long. She's very creepy. But on to the poetry:

livia

What a excellent mindset,
nonetheless just isn’t help
make every sence by any means
preaching about that will mather.

Virtually any means
many thanks as well
as pondered
endeavor to promote your current place directly into delicius
nonetheless
it looks like it’s problems in your blogs on earth
do you i highly recommend you recheck it.

thanks just as before.

audition

Hey,
you used to write wonderful,
but the last several posts have been kinda boring…

I miss your super writings.
Past few posts are just a little out of track! come on!

mannequin head display clamps

I am really impressed with your writing skills
and also with the layout on your blog.
Is this a paid theme or did you customize it yourself
Anyway keep up the nice quality writing,
it is rare
to see a nice blog like this one
nowadays.

truck simulator

I was suggested this website through my cousin.

I am not certain whether or not this publish
is written by him as no one else realize such distinctive about my trouble.

You are amazing!

Thanks!

airplane simulator

My brother suggested I may like this blog.

He used to be totally right.

This put up actually made my day.
You cann’t imagine simply how so much time I had spent for this information!
Thank you!

truck simulator (part II)

This website is my breathing in, rattling excellent layout and perfect subject matter.

Cheap mannequin heads stores

Heya I’m for the first time here.

I came across this board and I find it truly useful & it helped me out a lot.
I hope to give something back and aid others like you aided me.

cosmetology mannequin heads discount

I actually wanted to compose a quick comment
in order to express gratitude to you
for some of the amazing techniques
you are giving on this website.

My time intensive internet research
has at the end been recognized
with incredibly good facts and techniques
to exchange with my partners.

I would mention that most of us readers
actually are extremely fortunate
to be in a really good community
with many marvellous people
with great plans.

I feel pretty happy to have seen your entire website page
and look forward to some more amazing minutes reading here.

Thanks a lot once again for a lot of things.

Angry Mob Supplies

Used under the fair use doctrine for commentary purposes.

Nathan Bransford is trying to use the fire hose of reason on the folks attacking Jacqueline Hewitt and the books she’s written, after Hewitt rubbed a reviewer the wrong way and concluded her tirade with a few choice expletives.

Bransford, an author and former literary agent, correctly frames the situation as the result of an Internet angry mob, overreacting to Hewitt’s overreaction. Here’s the crux of his argument:

In truth, the actions of a mob say a lot more about the people participating in them than the person being scorned. And I think in the dark heart of a mob you'll find a quiet sense of relief. People are secretly and ardently glad that they're not the ones being targeted.

You can feel the relief and sense of superiority in numbers behind the mocking: Well, at least I'm not that bad off. And a hundred strangers agree with me.

But really that's a false sense of security. As the old quote goes, "A mob has many heads but no brains."

As I pointed out in my earlier post, what’s most important to take away from these kinds of situations is the desire to look at one’s own behavior to see what error precursors one can eliminate so such a situation doesn’t happen in one’s own little sphere. My takeaway from the situation: Make sure you have a set of cold eyes – preferably two or three sets – read what you’ve written before you publish. That’s one of the primary examples I see of publishing in the traditional sense, but even those who self-publish ought to be able to find a disinterested third or fourth party to do a read and offer some advice.

Hewitt could have easily turned her experience at Big Al’s into a learning experience, fixed the errors Big Al pointed out and turned the review into a positive experience. That she chose to take the other path doesn’t automatically give the rest of us the right to light those torches. In fact, the last impulse one should give in to (note, not that we won’t have such impulses, but we shouldn’t give in to them) is the one that involves finding pitchforks and lighting torches.

As it is, Hewitt will likely go away from this experience with less of a desire to expose her writing to legitimate criticism before it’s published, meaning she’ll learn less from the experience than the mob might hope. If, as Bill James writes, we want to create writers, we need to provide spaces and opportunities where they can learn early and often from their mistakes. Turning a critique into an angry mob – even if the author brings her own torch and pitchfork to the fight – isn’t conducive to creating a learning environment.

What, then, about Cooks Source Magazine? Here, an alleged serial plagiarist is called on the carpet by the Internet mob and essentially goes out of business. How is that situation different from Hewitt’s?

First of all, it’s no actionable offense to be a mediocre writer prone to odd phrasings and typographical errors. Maybe Hewitt’s work isn’t the best in the world, but it is her own.

But what about the mob mentality in this situation? The mob might, in part, have been responsible for Cooks Source in issuing a half-hearted apology, but what right did the mob have to pursue Cooks Source’s advertisers, vandalize its Facebook page (disclosure: I was one of the angry Facebook mob in this case) and otherwise harass the offender?

Damn few. And they’re all dead.

Oh, the Derp!

A horrible little boy came up to me and said, ‘You know in your book, The Martian Chronicles?” I said, ‘Yes?’ He said, ‘You know where you talk about Deimos rising in the East?’ I said, ‘Yes?’ He said ‘No.’ So I hit him.

That apochryphal event from the life of science fiction author Ray Bradbury always makes me chuckle, whether it’s true or not. It’s funny because every author wants to defend his or her own work. It’s even funnier because it’s hard to imagine Ray Bradbury ever punching a critic, let alone a little boy, horrible or not.

A spat that’s unfolded at Al’s Books and Pals blog – one of a googolplex of sites I’ve never heard of until this went viral – is a lot less chuckle-worthy than it is pain-inducing.

On March 16, Al reviewed Jacqueline Howett’s “The Greek Seaman,” praising the story but panning the book for its multiplicity of typographical errors and awkward wording. The author immediately jumped into the discussion, demanding Al remove his review, and read the “correct” or “emergency” version of the story she recommended he download. Then, as criticism mounted, she belched out a few expletives then left the discussion.

I highly doubt this situation will lead to a Cooks Source-style nuking of Howett’s career (the situations just don’t compare; Al rightly accuses Howett of poor proofreading and writing skills, not plagiarism) but the author’s over-the-top reaction is a caution to those tender Internet dwellers that there are distinct advantages to having someone with a critical eye review one’s work before it’s published, and that the author take criticism the way it’s intended – as a help, not a poke in the eye. (This kind of thing, unfortunately, isn't all that uncommon; here's another example provided by my brother-in-law.)

One poster said the following:

As a general rule, we as authors are told by our publicists that, "controversy creates buzz, and buzz generates sales."

Upon reading this thread I was pretty sure this wasn't the kind of "controversy" intended by the PR Pros, so I called my publicist and asked her if I'd misunderstood. Turns out I hadn't. I was correct in my assessment.

In fact, she threatened to kill me if I ever did such a thing.

Glad I checked though. I was just about to add telling everyone to "f**k off" to my promotional repertoire. Whew! Dodged that bullet...

;-)

And another chimed in:

It's sad because your reviews on Amazon were excellent, even though small in number. I give it to the end of the day before your starred review average takes a nose dive.

You've let one bad review turn your profile into a flame magnet - which is what always happens when something like this goes viral.

Those terrific reviews are going to get buried beneath a pile of 1-star reviews by people who've never, and will never, read your book, but will make posts about your behavior here.

Do yourself a favor, author, and don't give into the temptation to answer back over there; it will only back fire.

The author could have taken this opportunity to graciously thank the reviewer for making these comments and then earnestly worked to fix the errors – crowd-sourced editing and proofreading at its best, as the author apparently wants to go down the indie/self-published route. Instead, she takes herself and the thread as a whole down that shouty path.

This situation just cements in my head the overarching importance of having someone with a cold, fresh, critical eye read what you’ve written, especially if you’re going the indie/self-published route where editing is going to be cursory if not nonexistent. Errors and bad writing, of course, slip into even professionally-vetted writing, but you want to do what you can when you can to make your work as perfect as possible before it’s unleashed on the public which has that cold, fresh, critical eye that you desperately need.

I know I need it. I’m lucky in that I’ve got a technical-writer niece who has agreed to read “Considering How to Run” – that invitation is still open to anyone who wants to read it and offer suggestions to budding fantasy writer; just send me an e-mail at misterfweem (at) yahoo.com and I’ll get y’all set up.

Another note: One poster at Al’s blog was criticized for having a signature that promoted her own indie book. She removed the posts and apologized for the promotions. I have to ask: Why? Indie/self-published authors ought to promote their books when and where they can, and on a site that does book reviews it seems appropriate. How is this generation so averse to advertising – except when they like it – that they castigate a fellow author for advertising her own works in a public forum? Maybe it’s not correct to have that promotional hat on all the time, but the situation, I thought, seemed to fit the promotion, not the other way around.

Search Engine Boobization

I follow a fellow on Twitter who goes by the monicker “Seaslug of Doom.” One of Seaslug's Twitter schticks is to, once and a while, post a tweet featuring three words that are “unlikely to get auto-followers.” Some of his word lists have included:

angelet, annelid, and anthropogeny

andrology, anemotropism, and anenterous

For a while after I started following him, and after I started laughing at his tweets – because I've noticed that when I used some trigger tweet terms, I'd get followers that would quickly disappear when they realized I wasn't tweeting constantly on their pet subject – I pondered setting up a string of fake Twitter accounts to indeed follow him for his extended vocabulary. But I'm generally a lazy soul, and gave up on it.

But that brought to the fore the interesting world of search engine optimization. Learning to seach engine optimize is, of course, the wave of the future for the Internet. Search engine optimization, (SEO), when you get right down to it, helps optimize your Internet searches so when people search the Internet for topics that interest them, say, from search engine optimization to optimizing their website for search engines, they find you.

That paragraph is, of coure, my poor attempt at emulating the stilted language you find in articles that are search engine optimized. Farhad Manjoo over at Slate.com does a much better job of it than I. (So good, in fact, his article shows up on Page 1 when I searched for "Search Engine Optimization" in Google. But more on that, and my penchant for Slate.com articles, later.)

At Uncharted, we don't officially use SEO in our articles. I frown upon it, because of the stilted, silly way it makes articles sound. About the closest we get to such shenanigans is in the title or subhead to our articles, we try to include the name of the place we're writing about. I think that's fair and natural.

And, hopefully, so does Google. Because as Manjoo points out, there may be sites who know SEO, but if the writing isn't there to back up what the searchers are searching for, they won't stay at a site long. I can look at the Google Analytics for my own stable of blogs and see how many new visitors simply bounce out of my site when they realize that their search has led them to the infantile backwaters my blogs inhabit.

Anyway, on to Manjoo:

Search engines' algorithms are getting better at detecting keyword gaming, they're beginning to learn searchers' preferences, and they're using social-networking signals to figure out what you, personally, might consider a good or bad article. The other problem for the new AOL-HuffPo is the rise of social networks as a replacement for search engines. Did you go to Google to search for a story about the Huffington Post's purchase, or did you see the news on Facebook or Twitter? Those social networking links are becoming a bigger share of every news site's traffic; as one of my Slate colleagues pointed out, in the Twitter age, "optimizing for Google results is a little like going out and buying the best VCR on the market."

I'm not quite to the search engine stage in finding trigger material – I do tend to go to Twitter, Facebook, and the bigger news sites (and to aggregators) to find what interests me. I will do searches, however, to find similar information, or articles on a similar topic by a number of authors. And like the bouncers from my blog, I'll bail quickly on a site that isn't offering the information I want.
What's even more frustrating are the sites that use SEO in a way that's hidden. They want to show up in any search, so their SEO data is embedded somewhere the average Internet idiot like me can't see, so when I click on a page that's supposed to be helpful according to Google, the term I'm searching for doesn't even show up on the clicked page.

And I'm not a big fan of the content farms that are using SEO to clutter Google with poorly written information. If I want poorly written stuff, I read my own blog, thank you very much. But places like eHow and About.com just drive me nuts. I'd rather use Wikipedia.

Good news is, according to Manjoo, search engines may quickly be able to learn what sites I prefer and thus not show me results from sites I don't frequent:

The answer is … it depends. All Google results are personalized—that is, links you see in response to a specific query may be different from the ones I see for the same query. They differ according to a number of variables—what sites I favor, where I'm located, what device I'm using, and other secret factors. At the moment, search engines' personalization algorithms aren't fine-grained enough to give everyone their ideal article in response to a query like "worst cell phone on earth," but there's no reason to believe they won't get there: In the future, Google will know whether you favor Slate over HuffPo, or whether you like original articles versus summaries, or whether you're a fan of slide shows more than text, and it will serve you the article that's most appropriate for you. And as this happens, Google will surely diminish the weight it now gives to the keywords HuffPo jams in its articles.

That's both good and bad. Good in providing me better information, per my point of view. Bad as in it proved me information per my point of view, perhaps limiting my perspective on the subject (especially in topics that tend to have a slant such as politics, climate change, et cetera). So maybe getting the raw results of a search is better than a personalized result. Which is why Seaslug of Doom's tweets just entertain me so: He probably piques the interest of at least one twit per word.

Verdict: Guilty!

I have four boxes full of books stuffed into the closet under the stairs.

We have at least 70 linear feet of shelving in the study, also stuffed with books. There are books in the upstairs closet. There are books on my desk. And there are books on the shelves and on the desks and under the beds in our childrens' rooms. And I've got at least a hundred books on my iPod Touch.

We're rich with books.

The authors who write them, not so much.

I'm not one of those pirates we hear about, stealing books left and right. The ebooks on my iPod Touch are all in the public domain; I got them legally, for free. Every book in the house has been paid for by someone or other.

But most of them are used. I'd say less than ten percent are new. So that means for the 90 percent left over, the authors haven't seen a dime from us.

That's how it's always been though, right? Somebody buys the book new, reads it, then sends it on its merry way, either to a thrift store, a used book store, or other such outlet. And people like me buy them, and rarely pass them on, because people like me hoard books and are loath to see their collections shrink.

But, I have to ask myself, am I a parasite?

I read earlier today an excellent screed on the evils of downloading unpaid for ebooks, and how this newest type of copyright infringement is literally stifling the careers of some writers. The writer of this post writes with some experience, saying that even when the print demand for her book has slowed, the illegal downloading hasn't. Her fans are literally taking money out of her pocket, and gleefully tell her so.

This author shares some statistics that are pretty sobering and show the breadth and impact e-book piracy can have on an author, and his or her future success:

I’ve been very open about the money I’ve made and not made, to help give the writing community some perspective. So I’m going to be very open about money today. I’ve told you before that I made a $15,000 advance on SHADOWED SUMMER. In two years, I’ve managed to earn back $12,000 of that.

It’s going out of print in hardcover because demand for it has dwindled to 10 or so copies a month. This means I will never get a royalty check for this book. By all appearances, nobody wants it anymore.

But those appearances are deceiving. According to one download site’s stats, people are downloading SHADOWED SUMMER at a rate of 800 copies a week. When the book first came out, it topped out at 3000+ downloads a week.

If even HALF of those people who downloaded my book that week had bought it, I would have hit the New York Times Bestseller list.

That's some pretty serious impact. She's literally being paupered by her fans who see nothing wrong in praising her without actually paying her.

Worse yet, it doesn't end there:

And let me tell you guys… the sales figures on SHADOWED SUMMER had a seriously detrimental effect on my career. It took me almost two years to sell another book. I very nearly had to change my name and start over. And my second advance? Was exactly the same as the first because sales figures didn’t justify anything more. I don’t blame my publisher. There’s weak demand for my books, according to my sales figures.

Meanwhile, 800 copies of my book (worth about $1200 toward my advance, if everyone paid for a copy,) are being downloaded a week.

Yes, her fans who won't pay up are stifling her career.

This is serious business. This is why newspapers are up in arms about protecting their content and taking it behind paywalls. This is why the MPAA and other organizations are so serious about monitoring illegal copying and distribution of music and films.

And those who pirate and see nothing wrong with it just don't get it: They're thieves, they're hurting other people's careers, and they are, frankly, everywhere.

I glean two important bits of information from this post:

1) Unless you're a Terry Pratchett or the like, you're not going to make scads of money writing books. I'm okay with that. It's the writing, not the payment, that's really fun for me. But still, I'd like to be recompensed if people read and enjoy the stuff I'm writing. I don't want the moon, but I'd like to collect some of that astral dust, if you see what I mean.

2) I might be the pot calling the kettle black. I haven't bought a new book in years. I make no attempts to keep up with current fiction. My view of the writing world is incredibly narrow, despite the sheer tonnage of books we have in the house. And I don't really feel any modicum of guilt. There's too much out there for me to keep up. And I can't afford it, anyway.

Tangibles vs. Intangibles

"Online Ordering is the Greatest!" from Spamusement.com.

So, what intangible objects or services are you paying for on the Internet?

Me? None. Aside from the monthly fee we pay our internet service provider, we don’t pay a red cent for any intangibles on the Internet. Oh, we do buy quite a bit over the web – movies, books, computer parts and software, but as far as the intangibles go – mp3s, e-books, mobile apps, subscriptions, and such, we’re talking nada. Light chicken gravy territory.

We’re not in the norm.

A study released Dec. 30 by the Pew Internet & American Life Project shows that nearly two-thirds of Internet users “have paid to download or access some kind of online content from the internet, ranging from music to games to news articles.”

So does that translate into good news for individuals and businesses offering “intangible” objects for sale on the Internet? Well, looking at the data, it depends on what you’re offering.

Music and software by far are the most popular intangibles purchased on the web, with 33 percent of those polled saying they’ve made such purchases. Mobile apps clock in at 21 percent, with 19 percent and 18 percent, respectively, buying digital games or subscribing to the digital version of a newspaper, magazine, or journal.

The rest of the purchases are a mixed bag of this and that, ranging from 15 percent buying cell phone ringtones, 10 percent buying e-books and five percent each buying “tools or materials to use in video or computer games,” game cheat codes, and for access to certain websites such as online dating sites.

Of those purchasers, however, there aren’t many who cross lines. Forty-six percent say they’ve only purchased one kind of intangible item, with only 16 percent saying they’ve purchased sox or more types of content.

Pew’s data shows little by way of surprises. Those with incomes of $50,000 or greater were more than likely – in some cases, twice as likely – that those in lower income brackets to purchase music, software, and mobile apps online.

For those offering e-books or premium content – content held behind a paywall – the numbers are pretty dismal. Even in the highest income brackets, only 13 to 17 percent of those polled are buying premium content.

So what does all of that mean? Well, without some similar contextual data, not all that much. It would be interesting to know how many people are paying for “tangible” objects online so comparisons can be made between those who want to buy atoms – here, I’m using Pew’s descriptive words – compared to bits. Are fewer people buying e-books because fewer people are buying books in general, or is there a significant disparity between the purchase patterns?

Knowing what people buy, in addition, is only half of the story. Knowing why they buy tells a greater story. For example, I have wanted to purchase the soundtrack to Pixar’s “Up” for quite some time, but, apparently, Disney has decided only to release the soundtrack in digital form – no physical CD. I have not purchased the soundtrack because I prefer to have the physical media, even if I only listen to the music via iTunes. Why? It’s a tangible object. So a side-by-side study of tangibles versus intangibles would be more interesting, informative, and useful than a study that looks at intangibles alone.

This is especially important to small outfits like Uncharted, where we have limited resources to produce tangible and intangible items for sale to our Explorers. We have made a physical, hard-bound book as a priority, but given the likely high price of the book, what are our chances of getting the book sold? We’re also exploring intangibles like podcasts, photo sales, and workshops. Where do those fit in our audience’s buying habits and areas of interest? Knowing what Pew has found out gives us a general blueprint, but we can’t be sure that what they see in online purchasing will translate over to our different audience.

There is no Zen on the Internet. If the digital tree falls and no one is there to see it, it has not fallen at all, and the lumberjack has wasted time and resources felling it.

WikiLeaks and the "Smoking Gun"

I’ve followed this week’s revelations from WikiLeaks with much fascination.

Part of that fascination comes from my fascination with the White House of Richard Nixon, and how information parleyed through leaks (as with the Pentagon papers) and with informants (as with Watergate) showed the American news media in one of its finest hours and showed how the control of information and the lack of control over information – and not just a little bull-headedness, lying, and deceit – can bring down a government.

So with Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ founder, now calling on U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to resign if she did indeed authorize diplomatic spying on the United Nations, I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before the question that was asked of Richard Nixon – “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” – will be asked of Barack Obama.

I’m not one that’s out for Obama’s blood. I voted for the man. I had high hopes when I did so. But any politician who runs on a platform of change who then runs smack into the Same Old System in Washington and doesn’t make good faith efforts to change it – and that’s all of them, as far as I’m concerned – deserves to have that smoking gun question asked of them.

Time Magazine, in interviewing Assange, bluntly asked what the group’s next target is. I like very much what Assange said: “We don't have targets, other than organizations that use secrecy to conceal unjust behavior ... That's created a general target.”

It’s interesting to hear how many people are calling what Assange and WikiLeaks is doing “treasonous,” while at the same time not recognizing as treasonous the behavior of those caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Yes, there’s some parsing of language here: Treasonous against “our country,” whatever country that might be, without realizing or acknowledging that this kind of intelligence-gathering is treasonous against the greater good of mutual trust among nations.

None of the spying revelations surprise me; I’m not naïve enough to believe that even allies don’t spy on each other. But wouldn’t it be nice if we lived in a world where such spying just wasn’t necessary. Kind of like Thomas More’s “Utopia;” kind of like the opposite of Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince.”

And kind of like the battles raged in the Book of Mormon against the robbers of Gadiantion, who did everything underhanded they could to usurp and destroy the rightful government. So says Helaman Chapter 7:25, 28-29:

Yea, wo be unto you because of that great abomination which has come among you; and ye have united yourselves unto it, yeat, to that secret band which was established by Gadianton!

And except ye repent he shall perish’ yea even your lands shall be taken from you, and ye shall be destroyed from off the face of the earth.

Behold now, I do not say these things shall be, of myself, because it is not of myself that I know these things; but behold, I know that these things are true because the Lord God has made them known unto me, therefore, I testify that they shall be.

The Nephites saw their collusion with these people, who used deceit to gain power, bring their downfall. This is how our Constitution will hang by a thread, not because wicked people in office do so, but because we collude with them, calling evil good and good evil. It’s good to spy on others, even our allies, because they spy on us. That’s good, right? And not spying, well, that’s naïve. There’s the good being called evil.

Assange sounds like the kind of guy working to combat evil, even evil that’s called good. He told Time:

This organization practices civil obedience, that is, we are an organization that tries to make the world more civil and act against abusive organizations that are pushing it in the opposite direction.

It's very important to remember the law is not what, not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is. The law is not what a general says it is. The law is not what Hillary Clinton says it is.

Yeah, just like when Nixon told David Frost that “when the President does it, it’s not illegal.” Don’t buy it from him. Can’t buy it from the current administration.

Jach Shafer, writing for Slate.com, makes a good point for her resignation:

But what makes Clinton's sleuthing unique is the paper trail that documents her spying-on-their-diplomats-with-our-diplomat orders, a paper trail that is now being splashed around the world on the Web and printed in top newspapers. No matter what sort of noises Clinton makes about how the disclosures are "an attack on America" and "the international community," as she did today, she's become the issue. She'll never be an effective negotiator with diplomats who refuse to forgive her exuberances, and even foreign diplomats who do forgive her will still regard her as the symbol of an overreaching United States. Diplomacy is about face, and the only way for other nations to save face will be to give them Clinton's scalp.

But Hillary’s a politician. She won’t resign. Obama won’t ask her to do it, either. And because of that, he’ll be asked that Nixonian question. Wonder how he’ll answer.

And while I argued yesterday that perhaps the Internet was built for pessimists, today I have to offer this as evidence that it’s also made for the optimists and idealists as well.

Similar things, of course, happened to Richard Nixon when the Watergate tapes were released. Though they were heavily redacted as WikiLeaks’ document dump this week, they painted a clear enough picture for people to understand what was going on. And they were widely disseminated even without the Internet, given that they were in print and sold out in several printings, were dramatized in part on National Public Radio and other news outlets, and generally were the talk of the wonks. This weeks’ WikiLeaks revelations are nothing less, but are even more ubiquitously available, despite the denial of service attacks the site has suffered.

Finding the Facebook Killer

I’ve blogged in the past here about what we might want to do/need to do at Uncharted to make it a more appealing social media experience. My last post focused on the “Facebooking” of Uncharted, updating our static pages into something more dynamic, like Facebook’s news feeds (or indeed, Twitter’s constant updates) both of which feed our insatiable need for something new on the Internet that’s related somehow to our self-centered natures.

I wrote all that not because Uncharted is or possibly could be framed as the “Facebook Killer” – something it most certainly is not—but merely as a way to make our site more appealing to those on the site already and act as a potential draw for new Explorers.

So it was interesting to read Pete Cashmore’s column on CNN.com today, in which he talks about Facbook killers.

He points out that Facebook won the war against MySpace because of its news feed – a feature I advocate at Uncharted:

Facebook, which usurped MySpace for the social networking crown, did so with a radical innovation: the launch of its News Feed in 2006. This new feature wasn't just a "better MySpace" but a completely different approach to social interaction that replaced static pages with streams of constantly updated information.

Constantly updated information. I know that’s what I look for in the web sites and tools I regard as social – Facebook, Twitter, my personal blogs, even e-mail and other communications tools. It’s obvious that Uncharted needs to do some more along those lines if we’re to stay relevant in today’s social media landscape, if I may use such a tired metaphor. Dynamism is what we need to keep Uncharted going and to help it grow. We’ve got elements of that dynamism with stories and photosets being added periodically, but that dynamism needs to show up on individual profiles as well as elsewhere.

This also means we need to look at our competition – from the lofty National Geographic to more humble enterprises (like ours) such as travelbuddy.com. What are we offering that’s radically different? We’ve got stuff in the wings – professional development in the form of workshops on writing, photography, cultural awareness, et cetera. Those are the unique services we think we can offer our Explorers. We’ve just got to get off our duffs and do it.

So what does Cashmore envision as the Facebook killer? He’s not sure, except to say it won’t look anything like Facebook. We need to look at what our competition is doing and make what we’re doing look not like what they’re doing.

Which brings me back to the premise of Facebooking Uncharted. Is Facebook our competition? Not directly. Indirectly, however, yes – because of how easy it is to put travel-related stuff up on Facebook and share it with your already-existing circle of friends. No one is going to come to Uncharted until everyone is there – a conundrum faced by many social media sites.

Is the Internet Built for Pessimists?

I suppose this all goes back to the old newspaper adage: We don’t report on the plane landings. Just the crashes.

But I have to wonder: Does the instant media access/frenzy combined with the easy anonymity of the Internet make the Internet perfect for pessimists? I think so. Try to make a positive comment – especially in the realm of human behavior – and you’re going to be called a rose-tinted-glasses-wearing Pollyanna wannabee, at least on the sites I visited over the weekend.

Jack Cafferty – and his forehead – are but one example, wherein Mr. Cafferty trots out the typical media litany of bad Black Friday behavior, then shakes his head while asking the question “What’s happened to us?”

Well, Jack, nothing really. The media are still focusing on the bad behavior while ignoring the behavior that’s acceptable to exemplary. You’re feeding the pessimism you see in life without realizing there’s so much to admire in humanity. But I know that the Pollyanna attitude doesn’t drag eyeballs to your blog, so hey, I understand.

It's an old trick, and one I played a few times as a journalist. But the stories that I did which I remember with the most fondness are the ones that maintained a positive approach because, well, the news was positive: Two individuals with Down syndrome marrying each other, a local expert in wilderness survival getting to help out with the film "Cast Away," and any other number of stories I wrote. I miss doing those kinds of stories. The bad news/pessimist I gotchas, I don't miss much at all.

Fark.com as well has been a deep well of negative-vibe merchantry as of late. The collapse of a roof at a Salvation Army center in Colorado really brought out the ugliness.

Then again, it could be me. I call myself an optimist, but maybe -- just maybe, mind you -- the pessimists' posts are more interesting to read. Though interesting not in the "I agree with you" sense but interesting in the "wow this guy/gal must be a real train wreck and a ball at parties" sense.

I, for one, will continue to look on the positive side of things. Humans may have their failings, but that doesn’t mean humanity is of itself intrinsically evil. I’ll even look for the good among the media reports I see – though that task is a bit harder to accomplish.

Derp Redux, Plus Beam Removal

So Cooks Source has officially closed up shop, at least temporarily, to deal with the imboglio of a few weeks ago.

Looks like they did so Nov. 4, after their Facebook page got hijacked, after their local advertisers got harassed. Their website is now home only to a rather glib statement that's half apology, half shame-on-you to the people who did the hijacking and harassment.

To their credit, they did apologize to Monica Gaudio, the writer whose piece they used without her permission:

Last month an article, “American as Apple Pie -- Isn’t,” was placed in error in Cooks Source, without the approval of the writer, Monica Gaudio. We sincerely wish to apologize to her for this error, it was an oversight of a small, overworked staff. We have made a donation at her request, to her chosen institution, the Columbia School of Journalism. In addition, a donation to the Western New England Food Bank, is being made in her name. It should be noted that Monica was given a clear credit for using her article within the publication, and has been paid in the way that she has requested to be paid.

Note they don't admit to any systemic abuse or plagiarism, though that was an accusation lobbed at them. I don't know whether it's true or not. But I also don't know whether this article was used "in error," that it was "an oversight of a small, overworked staff." Sorry. Don't buy that. You may have a small staff, and you may be overworked, but that doesn't mean you can't take a few minutes to try to contact the author of an original piece before you decide to not only publish it yourself but also offer a rather stupid explanation for why you did it.

It's true that people upset at what Cooks Source did should not have hijacked the site's Facebook account or started up a bogus Twitter user to further harass the company. And while I'm not exactly sure what these same people might have done to harass the magazine's advertisers, I certainly don't think it's outside morality to contact an advertiser and say you're not pleased with the outfit where their ads appear.

But my wife had the following discussion earlier today: Do we sometimes treat the Internet as public domain? I had to answer that yes we do. Sometimes I'll search the net to find a photo or illustration to go with a blog posting here, and I don't ask permission. I use YouTube clips that no one asked the original copyright owner if they could use them. I can try to shield myself behind the feeling that since I'm not making money on this blog, I can use what I please, but that still doesn't feel right. Cooks Source statement, ironically, makes for good reading on this subject:

This issue has made certain changes here at Cooks Source. Starting with this month, we will now list all sources. Also we now request that all the articles and informational pieces will have been made with written consent of the writers, the book publishers and/or their agents or distributors, chefs and business owners. All submission authors and chefs and cooks will have emailed, and/or signed a release form for this material to Cooks Source and as such will have approved its final inclusion. Email submissions are considered consent, with a verbal/written follow-up. Recipes created in the Cooks Source Kitchen are owned by Cooks Source and as such approval is given for chefs and cooks in our area to use them. Artwork used is created by our staff, or is royalty-free or purchased “clip-art.”

However: Cooks Source can not vouch for all the writers we have used in the past, and in the future can only check to a certain extent. Therefore, we will no longer accept unrequested articles, nor will we work with writers or illustrators unless they can prove they are reputable people, provide their sources, and who, in our estimation, we feel our readers and advertisers can trust and rely on for accuracy and originality. All sources will be listed with the articles, along with the permission, where necessary.

So, dare I make some of the same pronouncements: Use only in-house art and such for this blog, or stuff that I've paid for or at least asked permission to use? And where and how may I apply the following principles:

• The fair use doctrine?
• Things that are truly, legally, in the public domain?
• And what about Creative Commons items?

And what would I do if someone whose stuff I'm using without permission came to me and said, cease and desist? Well, ceasing and desisting, with a sincere apology, would certainly be first and foremost on my mind.

So, expect to see more original illustrations here.

These are issues that anyone on the Internet needs to be aware of, wary of, and ready to react to as necessary. And finding the beam that's in our own eyes while we clamor for the removal of the mote from the other's eye is equally as important.

Still, part of our discussion this morning also went like this:

My wife does a fair amount of scouring the web for Cub Scout stuff. She finds a lot. She uses a lot. She always cites sources and gives credit where credit is due, but she's never asked anyone permission to use what she's using. Should she have to? Isn't the intent of putting stuff on the Internet that it be read and used and observed and enjoyed by others? Do we only cross a line when we get paid when we use someone else's stuff without permission? Current copyright law argues against that notion. Even the use -- outside of the vagaries of the fair use doctrine -- constitutes theft. All the victim has to do is claim harm, not merely that the profiteer profited off the pilfering.

On the Internet, Your Derp Follows You Forever

If there is anyone I would not want to be today, it would have to be Judith Griggs.

Up until this morning, I'd never heard of her, nor her website, Cooks Source magazine.The magazine looks to be fairly well put together, focusing on New England food, traditional food, and other such stuff. They also have a sister publication that focuses on travel in New England. Again, nice stuff.

At least until the site's owner was caught plagiarizing another web article for a story that appeared in the magazine, and appears, by some accounts, to be a serial plagiarist.

Plagiarism, however, is only the beginning. Griggs went on to tell the author whose words she'd lifted that the internet is "public domain," and that she should in fact charge her for editing the article and then publishing it (under the original author's name; let's give Griggs credit there). Now she's become an internet joke, her magazine's  Facebook page littered with accusations of unprofessionalism, plagiarism, and accusations that she's done everything from shooting J.R. Ewing to authoring Windows Vista.

The whole fiasco started here, (this site includes Griggs' hilarious non-apology) when the piece's original author Monica Gaudio was asked by a friend how she'd gotten published in the magazine. Then it went live all over the intertubes, including a mention at The Consumerist here.

Griggs may have singlehandedly killed two magazines and any hope of working in media again, at least for the forseeable future. I know it's ironic, with the web getting all torn up about plagiarism when at the same time these same folks are likely defending illegal downloaders against RIAA lawsuits for downloading music. But this story just goes to prove, as Clay Shirky writes in "Here Comes Everybody," that the social power of the Internet can bring evil-doers to justice far, far, far more efficiently than Spider-Pig. She's getting ink from the LA Times to the Washington Post. In the last 24 hours, the story has spread all through the intertubes, with Google finding more than 20,000 hits.

Plagiarism is serious business. That's why we at Uncharted have gone to great lengths to secure our copyright, going as far as settling our rights with the US Copyright Office. We post copyright notices on our staff stories, and have an avowed policy to take down any bit of information on our site that is suspected of being plagiarized. We haven't had the enforce the policy yet, but it's something we've had to think about, just to be on the safe side.

This also serves as a cautionary tale for any author, writer, creator, photographer or otherwise creative person. Beware of what you post on the Internet, and if you don't want it swiped wholesale, perhaps you'd better not post it at all. This is said by a person who has the entire text of an unpublished novel just a click away. Seriously, what am I thinking in keeping it here?

This whole story just goes on to prove that on the Internet, your derp follows you everywhere. With one lifted story and one half-assed apology and a ludicrous claim that anything on the Internet is free game for freeloaders, Griggs has destroyed her brand. Not funny at all, I'm sure she'll come to realize.

Truthiness is Taking Over

There are some things the Internet is worthless for -- and finding the truth is one of them.

Truthiness -- the word and concept popularized by Stephen Colbert -- is easy to find, of course. Truthiness defined:

Truthiness is tearing apart our country, and I don't mean the argument over who came up with the word…

It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People love the President because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't seem to exist. It's the fact that he's certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country. I really feel a dichotomy in the American populace. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?…

Truthiness is 'What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.' It's not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There's not only an emotional quality, but there's a selfish quality.

This is why things like ClimateGate are critical for the news media to report on, and to report on honestly. Because for people like me, who want to know the truth -- is the Arctic icecap melting, is Antarctica melting, is this happening, or is that happening -- have nowhere to go now. To find climate change scientists saying they've used a "trick" to "hide the decline" leaves me to wonder where the truth can be found.
 
Unfortunately, what we're getting is more truthiness.
 
Newsbusters.org offers me truthiness from the side that believes climate change is a hoax. Some of what they say rings true, but the truthiness rings louders. Places like RealClimate.org, well, their truth is sounding a lot more like truthiness these days. I want to know what's going on in the world and what I can do to support the long-term livability of our planet, but when it comes to a neophyte like me trying to find truth in the era of truthiness. it comes down to trust. Whom can i trust? I don't trust the deniers. And I'm finding it hard to trust the folks who appear to be cooking the books, using data that suits their purposes, or whatever is going on out there.
 
See, I'm not a climatologist. At best, I'm a guy who understands a bit of science -- I'm gaining more insight into physics given my place of employment -- but to say I understand enough to filter truth from fiction or truth from truthiness on climate change, I do not. I thought the media was supposed to help. But if all they can do on ClimateGate is tell me it's a no nevermind when by own bullshit meter is going off, I can't trust an appeal to the media to help me out on this. Because I've been a member of the media and know that when it comes to science reporting, most of what's out there in the professional media is parroted from the people offering the information in the first place. They can strive for truth and balance but at best can provide only the truth and balance taht other experts offer them. There are few in the professional media -- or int he blogosphere or on the wider Internet -- who have the necessary education to filter the signal from the noise. So an appeal to the mainstream media is laughable at best.
 
Then you go to the experts, and your Weird Shit-o-Meter goes off, becausehow much spin are they giving you? How do you sort the truth from the fiction among those to whom climate science is either a religion with dogma not to be questioned or junk science not to be regarded at all? Looking at the source used to help -- climate change science coming from someone connected to the coal industry, for example, you have to wonder about it. It's a shame ClimateGate is now making me wonder about the science that's coming from the other side of the coin.
 
I don't want truthiness. I want the truth. Can anyone tell me where to find it? I know how Charlie Brown felt when he demanded, "Is there anyone who can tell me what Christmas is all about?" I need a Linus. I need someone to quote me the Bible, chapter and verse.
 

 
Come on, folks. Here's your chance. Save me from climate change truthiness. Point me towards the truth.

Save Me From My ISP

If Only Hex Could Solve This Problem

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and make a prediction: The price we pay for Internet went up because it's now pretty much equal to the price the other major competitors in the area charge.

For about two years now, we've enjoyed high-speed internet service from Digital Bridge Communications (BridgeMaxx) for about $20 a month. Suddenly this month (and it might have been last month; I'll have to look at my records) the charge went up to $30. I'm not sure we ever got an explanation. But it didn't shock me to discover that the price increase puts BridgeMaxx's service right in par with that offered, pricewise, from Qwest and Cable One. Charge what the market will bear appears to be the motto.

I have to confess I'm awaiting BridgeMaxx's explanation with bated breath. I sent them a polite nastygram earlier today, and they responded by phone, unfortunately while we were gone. But I'm sure I'm going to get some cockamamie market-bearing answer out of them.

Unfortunately the competition isn't much better, pricewise.

Qwest is the one that bugs me the most. They're always hawking their DSL service. In the past month and a half, we've received two letters from Qwest advertising their service. One came as traditional marketing hoo-hah. The other came disguised as a Christmas card, but because of the Denver return address that I recognize immediately -- Qwest is the only entity I know on Denver's California Avenue -- I saw what it was immediately.

Thing is they NEVER have sales on their Internet. Always the same price: $25 a month, plus modem, or $20 a month if you have one of their cockamamie phone packages. Don't want one. Will never get one.

Cable One doesn't pester. But they want $26 a month. BridgeMaxx must have seen these prices and figured, well, we can get more money out of these folks. And while they may scream, they likely won't budge, because the competition isn't any better. Forget the rocket cars and transporter beams. What I want from the future is inexpensive Internet.

Survival of the Loudest

There's something uncannily Darwinian about the Internet, but I'm not sure it can be described as survival of the fittest. Maybe it's best described as Survival of the Loudest.

Take Digg, for example. Many moons ago -- well, we're talking months here, not years, since evolution on the Internet is highly contracted, making the growth of old media look like the growth of old forests. Anyway. Back on topic. Take Digg, for example. Many moons ago it was revolutionizing that budding thing called social media. People could go into Digg with a recommended story, and, huzzah, share it with the world. Why does social media sound like the peanut galleries I used to be a member of in college, the kind that made the professors mad and actually got me kicked out of one class? But now, Digg is the old, established media, and there is growing disgruntlement. Digg is getting too corporate, too censorial, too prone to allowing others to curry favor. Just like old media. So the even newer new media is popping up to try to supplant and usurp evil empires such as Digg. Given a few months, these new entities, too, will be regarded as old hat, charismatically evil, and such. The new one will always win because, on the Internet, we're all first adopters, crazily searching out the new, big thing and scratching at the doors to be let in so we can be the first to soil the carpets.

This is bloviation at its best, by the way. And I don't mean to single out Digg. It's just a site that popped to mind, but the same can be said of so many other sites.

You hear a lot of criticism about old media on the web. The criticism most bandied out is the "presumed guilty" attitude many in old media take. But isn't that pretty much the stance of most of new media as well? Controversey is what draws those eyeballs, isn't it? Doesn't seem to matter if the eyeballs are drawn to TV screens, dead editions or computer monitors. And for new media to scold old media for that kind of reprehensible behavior is very hypocritical.

Don't Leave Me With the Germans!

I know there's no one out there reading this. That doesn't bother me. There's so much noise on the Internet these days, I don't know why I bother adding to it. I look at it as a way to avoid feeling guilty about not journaling regularly, though this hardly counts as a journal, since there are things I don't care to write down for public consumption.
There are a few things about blogs that make me laugh, though:
Young bucks doing research for school assignments or whatever seem to think anything (and I mean anything) posted on the Internet, no matter the source, is legitimate. Reminds me of the Dilbert comic for the day:

Am I saying they're dumb? Dumb is such a harsh word. Lazy is probably a better way to describe it. I ought to know, because I succumb to laziness myself most days, but the Internet has made laziness infinitely easier to accomplish. Now, I know laziness was around long before the Internet. It's just . . . easier now. Want information on WIC? Just do a Google search and stumble around until you find someone who has some semblance of knowledge on the subject! No matter that there are people who really know the subject you could speak with, the Internet makes things easier because you don't actually have to care if what you're reading is correct. Yes, I'm being harsh. And, yes, I've done this kind of slipshod research myself. But I find it ironic that in a generation that assumes the government is lying about everything in the universe, including about the universe itself, the same generation assumes that the truth really is out there, just a few clicks away. Don't consult the experts who are tools of The Man, but cite the nutjobs and pseudo-experts who pull their information out of who knows where.
Case in point: There's a video on YouTube (a fountain of pure knowledge) featuring some nutter jabbering about a "nuclear accident" in Idaho, back in March. Yes, he has an element of truth: nuclear accident. But he launches into a sweeping assumption that the accident is on a massive scale at the Idaho National Laboratory and that the government and media is covering it up, when, in fact, if he had bothered to Google anything but a public description of the INL on the web, he would have quickly discovered the accident was a broken gauge at a private facility in Idaho Falls. So, the basic truth (nuclear accident) was true. But the treatment (NUCLEAR ACCIDENT!?!?!?!?!!!!!) is patently false. And he's praised for "getting the truth out there."
Yes, it's an extreme example. But I look at it as evidence that the Internet, in many ways, is dumbing us down, much like Aldous Huxley predicted in Brave New World.
And while I'm ranting: Yesterday I read a report on the BBC that visitors of Knut the polar bear in a zoo in Germany were shocked, shocked! to see their favorite cuddly little carnivore pulling fish out of the water in his cage and eating them. They were shocked that a CARNIVORE was doing its job, and questioned why the zoo would allow such an effrontery in public. These are, of course the same Germans who come to Yellowstone and are shocked when the buffalo gore them rather than stand placidly still while they get their pictures taken. (I know. Blanket attack on the Germans. But I'm with Basil Fawlty on this one.)
Another example: This was on Digg a while back. Somebody sent in a picture of a test on which a student had given an "incorrect" answer. The test was on opposites. The word (in this case, a suffix) was "pro-". The answer given: "Noob." As in newbie. Internet newbie. An answer given by an Internet moron.
Call me a nitpicker. Please. Because that's what I am.

Bigfoot Lives! With Marvin the Martian!

So, Bigfoot has been sighted again. This time on Mars:



True. If you tilt your head and squint just right, you can see the figure of a striding -- that's the word all these Sasquatch people use: striding -- briskly across the Martian landscape. To prove they're politically sensitive, most of those babbling about this image on the Intertubes believe the figure to be female. That makes me feel warm all over: Female Sasquatch Spotted Striding Briskly on Mars! Probably going to stride briskly right over to the Mars rover that took her picture and re-wire the dang thing so it works better, reconfigure the solar panels so it absorbs more light and THEN demand that it be painted pink or fuschia. I'm sure if she were striding in a way that would allow us to see her left hand, she'd be carrying a purse.

NASA, on the other hand, insists this briskly striding figure is, in fact, a two-inch-tall hunk of Martian rock, carved by the wind. So consider: One one hand, we have an element of the (roll ominous music) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT once again engaging in a cover up, because all of their other cover-ups (Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Guantanamo, secret Bette Midler breeding program) were so successful. And we have a pure group of Internet-based truth seekers who have been so successful in selling their truth (Ron Paul) to everyone. Guess who comes up as more believable? (Believe it or not, searching for Ron Paul and Sasquatch pulls up more than 70,000 hits on the Internet, including a site that also offers itself as a web portal for the band "Testicle Bomb." There's your plug, boys.)

Eric Hartwell, a poster at the site linked here: http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=4927&st=30&p=108306, pokes fun at the Intertube dwellers, claiming to have spotted in the same NASA photograph other figures, some striding and some not, including: Jabba the Hutt, a poloar bear, a duck, a hand pointing to the striding Sasquatch and a Tiki head which, judging by the look on its face, is getting a good glance up the Sasquatch's skirt. (He posts pictures at the site as well. Please take a look. Then take the Jabba the Hutt picture out of scale and context and show it to your Star Wars fans just to watch them gibber.)

I'm fairly certain the first people to notice this striding figure thought, "Ha ha! Let's post ths somewhere so some idiots will believe it's a Sasquatch!" But believe me: I've been to Idaho State University's Sasquatch display. (ISU is an epicenter of Bigfoot research, God only knows why.) These people NEED NO ENCOURAGEMENT to be absolutely nuts. Because as Nose Hair Man (our site mascot) will attest, it's EASY to find familiar shapes in nature, because our eyes and brains want to make sense out of nonsense. This explains why I have identified three geese, a dragon and a coyote in the plaster swirls on my bedroom ceiling, and why I have a collection of rocks that resemble pigs' noses (which evidently prove that ancient pigs had easily-detachable and quickly-fossilizing snouts in order to make it easy for modern man to find and classify their remains). I love how much Mother Nature cooperates with mankind's whacked-out fantasies. . .