mjm wired

In a half filled lecture hall in the fall of 2000, I heard an enthusiastic Compaq (now HP) engineer talk about his work with IPv6. He said eventually every single tiny device you own will have an IP address to connect to the internet. Most of the students passively dismissed this idea. I was among them.

I was fortunate to have the time and the means to attend Google I/O last month. This is Google's yearly conference known for engaging software developers on a deep level to both promote Google's technologies as well as openness on the internet. The demo for "Froyo" - Google's next update for their Android cell phones - is what really caught my attention.

I honestly beleive the the new features introduced are really what the customer wants and NOT what the manufacturer wants you to want. This is quite revolutionary in this age. Things in Froyo will deeply offend the cell service providers (who might charge extra $20/mo for hotspot) or even the media companies (who want to charge you to stream music). And the sad thing is that these things aren't really revolutionary take so long to get to the people.

When reviewing Apple's iPhone 4 presentation last week, it was pretty clear to me that the iPhone will be a dominant product for some time to come. But outside of the typically bigger and faster - I failed to grasp the features that make it so much better. Limited multitasking? Changing backgrounds? I don't see how iPhone users are much better off than they were one year ago. And even worse in some cases with Apple's strict limitations on what you can do on your phone.

I'm not a Google fanboy (I'm still using my Palm Pre - soon to be also purchased by HP *sigh*). I don't even care much for Flash. I'm just a bit disappointed by complacent Apple customers whose very purchase only contributes to denying progress in this market.

I am however making the plunge to Android. In a few weeks when I get a chance, I will be switching over to my new HTC EVO 4G. How to describe this phone? Impressive! And the best part? The "Froyo" update soon to come will only push that further.

When the Google I/O keynote emphasized how openness will rapidly progress evolution in smartphones - virtually no attendee dismissed this idea. I am among them.

A few days before Christmas I decided to watch Avatar with my brothers. I don't visit theaters often, so I thought it would be fun to watch it in IMAX 3D (based on great past experience). Considering it was the holiday season with more crowds the box office, I opted to purchase tickets online for a reserved seating show (a first for me). For security, I used a temporary credit card number (like I always do) and printed my confirmation/receipt and went to the theater a few hours later. I didn't think much of it.

At the Showcase Cinemas I waited in line to get my physical tickets and was told that they could not give them to me unless I had the actual credit card with me. So, like any place, I had to talk to the manager. He politely informed me that my confirmation number is inadequate (useless) and he "can't release the tickets from the system". He could not even cancel the seats which were already paid and re-issue them. The system does not provide for that feature. Before he let us pass and get our seats, he asked me to call back later and provide the credit card number. Apparently, that is the only way the theater can actually get paid for the tickets that technically movietickets.com sold me. I agreed and saw the movie.

About the movie, quick synopsis: Attractive blue monkey-tigers in a computer generated paradise world who mind meld their appendages with nature have to fight off stereo-typical technologically advanced civilized people-soldier-strip-miners with the help of a crippled former soldier psychically connected to an artificial monkey-man hybrid which is known as an Avatar. Basically the plot of Furngully: The Last Rainforest redone by the guy who did Terminator 2 and Titanic (with the stuffings). Really good stuff really, however unoriginal. The animation was gorgeous. The only let down was the IMAX 3D did not even come close to exploiting its full potential. Fun and exciting movie nonetheless.

The great irony for me: the movie's theme was clearly anti-technology. I think the blue monkey's mother deity glow stick willow tree was trying to tell me something: pay in cash you moron. I got the message.

When I got back to my computer, I debated whether I should call back. Economically the theater chain should take a hit and fix their broken system they have with their sales and marketing partners. Why should I be punished for being responsible for my online security? But alas, its Christmas dontchaknow, so I called back with the number. On the receiving line the clerk basically said people forget their cards all the time. So no major worry for me. Hmmm.

The moral of the story is: you can't trust the system.

There is a pretty popular video featuring a staged wedding intro dance at a church in Minnesota. When I saw the video a week ago I think the view count was somewhere near the million mark(?) and as of today it is has passed 13 million views! Almost every news outlet has picked up the story considering the story is quite simple: a fun dance at a wedding featured on Youtube.

I saw this CNN link about the video via the blogosphere. From the article (emphasise mine):

"The joyous video of the group busting their loosely choreographed moves down the aisle went viral after the newlyweds posted it on YouTube."

The only problem is that the link to the Youtube video is not anywhere on the page from CNN. Don't you think it would be nice? The internet as a medium is meaningless without linking to content. This isn't a newspaper. Obviously the first thing any reader will want to do is see the video.

It seems incredibly out of date to report news about a website, a post or internet sensation without actually linking to it. I agree there are many things I don't want to see (violent images for example), but reporting on anything that is "viral" is naturally going to increase its popularity. Unfortunately this issue is not limited to funny videos. There are plenty of useful websites that news sites like CNN discuss at lengths (Wikipedia anyone?) but intentionally refuse to provide any links. In the least, it makes sense to place a link to the content at the end of the article so people can see it after reading (MSBNC for example). The effect of sites like CNN will make me completely disregard the news piece and just google for it myself.

No, I don't really visit CNN anymore. When they figure out how to use the internet, someone please let me know.

And the cycle is complete... Today Mozilla released version 3.5 of their popular Firefox web browser. The browser came with a exclusive Private Browsing mode which by their own words claims: "won't leave a single browsing fingerprint behind for others to discover". As silly as that statement is, Firefox is actually the 3rd browser to ship with such a feature. Chrome by Google (ironically Mozilla's primary "benefactor") introduced "Incognito Mode" last year, and even Microsoft's IE8 beat Mozilla with "InPrivate Browsing" in it's release several month's ago. (Opera I love you too, but you don't have this feature ... yet)

All this privacy feature does is prevent the client (that's you!) from recording basic web history, cookie data or cached versions of web pages (included images). Many were quick to point out that this would be ideal for browsing those "mature" websites that you wouldn't want others to know about. First of all, private or not, there are usually at least 3 entities that can see what you're doing: you, your ISP, and the site you are visiting. I won't even try to bother to figure out if it is forensically impossible to detect anything you did while "privately browsing" (anybody know?).

Even with all that in mind, if your browser does not record your activity there are no rules about what your plugins record. Might those "mature" websites use video? Well surprise: Adobe Flash (which practically powers 99% of the video on the web) does in fact leave little tidbits of webby goodness somewhere deep in your personal computer profiles. Lets not forget an occasional Java applet? And I have no idea how what else people allow their browsers to load and run these days (ActiveX I hate you).

Anyways, I honestly don't think that browsing the web has become any more or less private with all these new releases of software. I just hope people don't get the wrong idea and get themselves into bizarre situations assuming their computer is doing something its not (or vice versa).

But hey, don't let this (possible) shortcoming detract from the many new features that the big browsers have been putting out. Great stuff to see, check it out - in "private" if you want.

I can count on one hand how many times I went to see a movie on opening weekend. Although it was fun, I never did so because I was eagerly anticipating the movie. It was always because of the situation or the company I was keeping at the moment. In the eyes of the movie industry I'm a bust - I don't succumb to paying $9.50 right away and add to what makes a movie a "blockbuster".

I don't mind waiting to see a movie. I find watching a DVD on a regular 30inch screen with normal 5.1 sound perfectly enjoyable. And renting is a fraction of the theater price (especially for a group). Previously I preferred to rent movies at Hollywood Video (which was previously "Video Watch"). The DVD rental there would only cost $3.00. However too many stores closed or were re-located, and I ended up going to Blockbuster. I found the more expensive rental fee of $3.99 acceptable since the alternative was incredibly inconvenient, and it was something I did rather infrequently.

However over the past 2 years the rental price at Blockbuster where I live went to $4.29 and now is at $4.69! This is getting to be too much. It has reached the tipping point that buying a used DVD maybe only marginally more expensive than renting a used DVD, and in the case of a slightly older movie, buying will be cheaper than renting!

What are the alternatives? Many cities and college campuses now have DVD "kiosks" which you can get a rental for as cheap as $1. The only downside is that it is typically 1 day only and the selection is incredibly limited. Netflix offers rentals in the mail. However their plans aren't that much cheaper if you watch DVD's as slow as I do. If you have Digital Cable you can use "On-Demand", but often neither the price nor the qaulity is worth a 24 hour rental.

Or do what I do: Buy used! You can go to Ebay and sometimes walk away with a $5 used DVD. Or if you don't like bidding, use Amazon. For Amazon just make sure you select "Buy used" and it can be as low as $1.99 (sometimes cheaper). For both sites shipping is max $3.00 (never buy if it is more than that). Understandably the $3 shipping may seem like a waste, but since you own the movie you can recover a large portion of the cost by easily reselling it on Ebay, Amazon or Craigslist. (Please be careful when using Craiglist as there is no protection for buying or selling).

Right now I keep a list of older movies (within the past 5yrs) that I would like to watch. If I see them cheap on any of the above sites, I will snatch them up. I have a stack that I haven't watched yet. The best part is that they are always there whenever I want to watch them - no need to run out and get something. When I'm done, I will keep the good ones and sell the rest. The money lost will still be cheaper than renting. It sounds time consuming but if you "queue up" and do it every few months, you'll find it can be fun.

Looking back, I will admit there were a few movies that I wish I had seen earlier and even fewer that I wish I had actually seen in the theater. But it's just a movie, and I am really glad I don't put that much value into it. If I were asked: "What's a movie worth to me?", my response would be "maybe $4 bucks - give or take".