You got the shit out of me

I’m going to use a Drudge link from today that set me off, but if there was one from Huffpo that ilicited the same reaction, I would have used that as an example. Here we go:

‘PERFECT CITIZEN’ PROGRAM PLACES ‘SENSORS’ THROUGHOUT WEB

At first glance, what does this say?  “We are watching you, America, BIG BROTHER BIG BROTHER BIG BROTHER”. Let’s click through to the actual piece:

The federal government is launching an expansive program dubbed “Perfect Citizen” to detect cyber assaults on private companies and government agencies running such critical infrastructure as the electricity grid and nuclear-power plants, according to people familiar with the program.

The surveillance by the National Security Agency, the government’s chief eavesdropping agency, would rely on a set of sensors deployed in computer networks for critical infrastructure that would be triggered by unusual activity suggesting an impending cyber attack, though it wouldn’t persistently monitor the whole system, these people said.

Set aside the fact that it clearly says it will be installed in computer networks for critical infrastructure, (aka not peoples personal networks), this is the government trying to protect our national interests from a potentially grave threat.  If Al-Qaeda, North Korea, or some group we aren’t even aware of yet was able to penetrate our power grid, disable it, and then launch a potentially devastating terror attack, we would be utterly helpless.  If they took down the power grid in New York, our financial system would be in shambles.  If they accessed our subway systems, crashing trains into each other would be as easy as pressing a few buttons; hundreds if not thousands could die. Or God forbid air traffic control.

What is the benefit of phrasing the headline like this, other than inciting fear and distrust in those who read his site?  We live in a time when peoples opinion of government is at an all time low, and this sort of behavior only strengthens that feeling.  What is the endgame, though?  Is it inspiring paranoia in the government as a whole, or just in a Democratic government?

Outlets with an agenda, whether it be Drudge, Huffpo, or Fox News, does nothing beneficial to the general discourse, or the well-being of this country.   It continues to polarize and divide when we should be coming together, and working to better our ways of life.

The Android interface isn’t bad, per se, it’s just not great.  There’s nothing about it that feels cohesive, easy to use, or even really unique.  It’s a medicore attempt at the iPhone user interface, which to me and 10’s of millions of others, is a usable piece of art.  There is a cohesion across the iPhone experience that you cannot find anywhere else, except perhaps in areas of WebOS.

Most companies underestimate the importance of a really sexy, usable interface.  This is the way we as humans interact with our technology.  We don’t tap on the microchips, or watch the electricity flowing through the capacitors.  We press buttons, swipe menus and tap keys, and that process needs to be effortless; as if it was an extension of ourself.  This step by Google shows that they are finally prepared to make a concerted foray into how people interact with their products.

Android works, and it works well.  The recent Froyo update gives me goosebumps with how well it performs.  But performance is only part of the equation.  If you build a car that does 0-60 in 4 seconds, it isn’t going to mean a lick if every time someone tries to drive it, they careen off the road and into a tree.  Android needs to be molded from a 1994 Ford Explorer, into a 2010 Audi R8, and if there’s anyone that can accomplish this task, it’s Matias Duarte.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, and when we’ll begin to see his vision on our Google devices.  The other interesting possibility is what sort of influence Matias would have on a tablet interface.

HTML5 is leading the way to literally replacing the desktop as we know it.  Applications are run, and stored, in a browser.  No longer do you need to put in a physical disc, or worry about hard drive space; everything is a part of the cloud.  You can edit your photos, watch video and even play games, all from within Chrome, or Firefox, or IE, or whatever your flavor is.

The implications are quite staggering.  Not only are you changing how applications are developed, and delivered, you’re changing how people interact with their technology.

If we think about mobile devices, and what the iPhone and Android has done for application developers, just imagine what this HTML 5 solution could bring.  You can have an HTML5 game app of Chess that you were playing at home on your PC while it was raining, and the sun suddenly comes out.  You decide you want to enjoy the nice weather while it’s there, so you put the game on pause (or tell your friend to hold on) while you grab your smartphone, walk outside, and launch the game on your phones browser and hop right back in from where you left off.  Extrapolate this into any number of scenarios.

A consistent, static experience no matter where you are, no matter what you are doing across any device.  No more closed gardens, no more having one app on one OS, and one on another.  This is truly the open web.

I find it ironic that I watched this video today in which Bill Gates and Steve jobs talk about the future of technology, and how far off Jobs was.  Everything is a PC now, just in a different form factor, and this will hold true even more-so in the HTML5 future.  A varying number of device designs and iterations, all facilitating this general purpose experience.  It’s pretty exciting to potentially have a future where you only need 1 device to carry around, and one device at home to accomplish all of your needs.  It’s even more exciting that users will be able to have a consistent and robust experience, wherever they go.

As a technology user who’s always looking for the latest and greatest, I welcome improvements to my devices with open arms, especially when they produce big % improvements.  I also look forward to hearing how Google/Sony and Intel plan to conquer the living room, and take down the iPad.

There’s one thing that strikes me, though, about Google.  There are companies that innovate, and there are companies that copy and improve.  I can think of one particularly glaring example who does not truly innovate (at least anymore) and instead, chooses to hop on the bandwagon of someone elses success and try to duplicate it to the best of their abilities.  I had a perception of Google as a company who innovates, who blazes the trails of technology with new and innovative ideas.  And yet, as time goes on, I feel like Google is simply trying to play catchup.

Buzz is the perfect example of not only trying to jump on a bandwagon, but doing so in an utterly bumbleheaded way.  You’re Google, you have the greatest collective mind trust in the world at your fingertips, and you can’t even properly implement a Twitter clone?  No one realized that people might be upset that anyone can see what they’re writing?  It’s like someone at the Googleplex said “Hey, that Twitter thing looks successful, let’s throw something together” and then spent about a week throwing together a solution.  It was sloppy, it was rushed, it was poorly implemented and executed and Buzz will most likely never catch on because there’s no real viable path of execution.

While not an attempt to hop on to an existing success, Google’s attempt at selling phones online was similarly blundered.  This was a fascinating opportunity to not only explore selling direct to customers, but also in changing the entire cell phone paradigm.  The initial rumblings of Google providing ad subsidized devices was one of the most compelling things I’ve heard in a while, and offered a light at the end of the tunnel for the draconian practices that cell phone companies have engaged in for some time now.  Unfortunately, Google threw something up on the web, offered one (excellent) device with an extremely high barrier to entry, and then kind of let it stagnate.  No new devices were added, no attempt to make the practice simple and streamlined, no unique pricing model, no support, and on and on.  Had they executed properly, it might have distracted people from the fact that they could not actually try the device before purchasing it.  But hey, if I can find a good sale on a pair of pants online, I’ll forgo the fear that they won’t properly fit when they arrive.

A company needs a unique offering to get off the ground, but it’s how it executes and innovates after it achieves success that truly tells the tale.  Google introduced one of the most powerful and innovative tools that humanity has ever seen, and literally changed the landscape of the web for years to come.  But the world is constantly changing, and the web changes even faster, and if Google wishes to remain a force of nature, it will have to find ways to not only blaze new trails, but also execute on everything they want to deliver.

I’m hoping that we see some of that innovation from Google today, and get a proper sense that they are going to execute.  That’s one thing that Apple has utterly nailed at this point.  When they announce a new product, no matter how much it may not interest you from the get-go, you know that they are going to execute in the end.  Google, on the other hand, has me a little bit wary.

To me, you should be afforded the opportunity to keep your life private on the web, and if a site can’t offer that, then someone should create a site that can.  A site like Facebook is entirely dependent on its userbase, and if they poison their food supply, they die.  Without me, and my 400 friends, and their 400 friends, and their friends 400 friends, Facebook is just a collection of source code.

Now, Facebook, and anyone else who runs a web site is free to do whatever it wishes with the actual design, functionality and what content is presented to the user.  Hypothetically , Facebook could force you to watch 30 minutes of ads before you are allowed to use their site if they so wished.  Where the issue comes into play is what is done with the content created by the user, whether it be status updates, notes, comments, etc.

This is not an easy issue to resolve.  On one hand, you could argue that a person should be free to go on Facebook, lock down their profile so that only friends can see what they write, and espouse about their adoration of Pol Pot without fear that a potential employer could Google their name, and find their writings.  This still is America, last I checked.

At the same time, this is Facebook’s website, and the management might feel that allowing users to hide everything about themselves from sight while they exist in Facebook’s virtual space, is an affront to their personal beliefs.  Furthermore, Facebook is a business, and their major source of income is derived from advertising.  In order to better serve the advertising community, and to better grow their business, allowing third parties access to information about their users is a necessity if they plan to continue to survive.  If an advertiser is unaware of the type of audience they are targeting, they are not going to invest the money.  Why would Activision spend money advertising their new Call of Duty game on Facebook, if they don’t know if they are advertising to the type of people who play Call of Duty?

Again, there is no easy answer.  From my perspective, if someone wants to know what kind of music I like in order to advertise a particular type of music to me, I don’t really care, as long as it’s not intrusive in my life.  I love sites like Last.FM, where my experience is catered to me based on what I like and do not like.  It’s much better than wandering in this enormous sea of content to try to find something that I enjoy.  Furthermore, what is Sony going to do that impedes on my personal freedoms based on what kind of movies I am a fan of on Facebook?  Do I have to worry about Sony stealing my identity?  Do I have to worry about them coming and robbing my house?  No.

But I feel that status updates, notes, comments, should be private.  This is communication between one or more people, and while it is on a public website, it still is a private conversation in the same way that I can have a private conversation with someone while sitting next to them on the El train, or the CTA Bus.  There’s no reason that Microsoft, or Sony, or Dell, or Amazon, or anyone needs to know that my grandmother passed away, or that I got into a car accident, or that I love Sally Green (which I do, what a lady!).

There needs to be a happy medium.  I don’t think people would care if there were access for third parties to your “interests” or your “favorite music” but there needs to be equal protection for your more private content.

One thing that also may help Facebook; stop making comments like “We are going to own the social media content”.  That just sounds too totalitarian for most people.

Facebook shouldn’t be what it is today, at least if Sean Parker has anything to say about it.   I cannot agree more with Sean, who is former President of Facebook, and current managing partner at Founders Fund.  There’s no reason that Friendster, which was the defacto social network of the time, or MySpace, which made Friendster look like the local bowling hang out, shouldn’t be the top dog today.

If you build enough of a userbase, there’s no reason why anyone should be able to dethrone you unless they come up with a different, more compelling concept than yours.  As I said in my previous post about Facebook’s success, Twitter can exist because it isn’t Facebook.  If Twitter was a site with status updates, profiles, games, blogs, etc. nobody would have heard of it.  The micro-blogging/Facebook status update nuggets that Twitter generates are different enough, and delivered in a compelling enough way to make Twitter viable.

Myspace, Friendster and Facebook are essentially the McDonalds, Wendy’s and Burger King of the web.  They all serve essentially the same thing, but the difference is, Facebook served it up quicker, cheaper and better than the other 2.  While a McDonalds can exist near  Burger King because someone may prefer a Big Mac to a Whopper, when it comes to connecting with friends, no one wants to fragment their relationships, so they gravitate to one place.

I can’t imagine what went on at Friendster, but I can remember trying to use that site for months upon months, and thinking how utterly amateurish it was run.  MySpace was a very similar experience, only with more viruses, and more spammers.

It’s a wonderful lesson to ANYONE who is starting a business; you can not rest on your laurels.

This sort of behavior is sorely missed in politics today.  Here is someone who has issues with a piece of legislation, but can also see that the positives outweigh the negatives.  On top of that, he has no issue complimenting the President for his charisma and understanding of the subject matter:

Frist lauded Obama for his “persuasive charisma” and “command of the subject.”

“You have a president there who got his hands dirty, but still looked presidential,” Frist said.

If only we could play with reality and place Frist as the minority leader of the Senate today.  It would be fascinating to see what his approach would be if he were not retired from his post.

And as the article points out, Tea Party supporters are:

“whiter, older, wealthier, and more well-educated than the average American. They’re “just as likely to be employed, and more likely to describe their economic situation as very or fairly good”

It all makes perfect sense from this perspective.  The Tea Party is scared of the change that is coming to America, embodied in a half black, half white President who campaigned on a message of change.  While his change had more to do with fixing our countries problems, combined with a departure from the previous administration, and less to do with changing the racial landscape, it still is easy to see why people are so riled up.

They might convey a message of wanting to go back to the values of the forefathers, but what they really want, is a return to a country that had a lot less people with different colored skin.

I’ve had quite a few discussions about the nature of the Tea Party, and the people who associate with the movement.  I realized after one such discussion last night, that the view that I was getting could be eschewed by the lens that I was viewing the events through.  I try to be independent in my news consumption, but I will readily admit that most of my information comes from what could be considered more liberal sources.  While I do read The Atlantic, and while I do watch CNN, I also read Huffington Post, and watch MSNBC.  I refuse to watch FOX, in particular for Tea Party coverage, due to the fact that they actively support and promote the events, which I see as a substantially more biased perspective than from someone like Rachel Maddow displaying inappropriate signs.

But in reality, I do get a skewed perspective of what the Tea Party is, insomuch that every media outlet that I go to, thinks the Tea Party is an absolute joke.

Is it?  I don’t really know.  I’ve watched videos where very simple questions are asked of seemingly normal attendees of the rallies, and the responses are utterly mind blowing.  I see quite a few signs that are offensive, and inappropriate as well.  In addition, quite a bit of footage is available of speakers such as Michelle Looney Toons Bachman, She Who Shall Not Be Named, and Victoria Jackson talking utter nonsense.  None of this is doctored, nor is it cut in order to make people look bad from my perspective.  The thing that I’ve come to realize is that there is very little footage, or pictures that I’ve seen that shows anyone who is relatively moderate.

To me, this is indicative of the issue with the politicking media today; there is no real independent news source.  CNN, while “independent”, also has a bit of a liberal slant.  Fox News is right wing, MSNBC is left wing.  So where do we turn?  If I come on the internet, almost everything has a bias, except for perhaps FactCheck.org, which isn’t exactly a news organization.

Is this not an issue that deserves some serious attention?  Are we not doing a disservice to our country by supporting this type of media environment?

I would love to see a news organization spring forth that is based entirely on facts and unbiased reporting.  If there’s a series of Tea Party rallies, send out 5 teams; 1 to Arizona, 1 to Oklahoma, 1 to Illinois, 1 to New York, and 1 to DC.  Have the teams film the rallies, interviewing people with crazy signs, with reasonable signs, people without signs, people dressed up and people just walking around in jeans and t-shirts.  Cut it together in an hour or two special, and make the raw footage available if people wish to order it.

Perhaps this is idealistic, but I think it would restore credibility in the media from both sides, as well as painting our country in a less partisan light.  This would in-turn result in a more educated and even-keeled public, and also relieve some of the pressure that is being placed on politicians to fall in line with their party.

Or, we can just continue down this path of division and bias.