Quantum Statement

The New Internet, the New World

MyBeef with Myspace

Myspace has changed its policy on embedded flash content.

Now, when you embed a YouTube Video or a Google Video into a friend’s comment, it says you have to wait for your friend to ‘approve’ the comment before it gets published. My friends have told me that they have inadvertantly deleted people’s comments because when Myspace alerts the user that he or she has a new content with embedded flash, the message is confusing and leads the user to believe that this is some kind of fraud or scam. Comments are deleted. I deleted one comment that had a video in it before I could approve it and three people I know did the same thing.

Is this a hiccup that Myspace is working to fix? Or is this their response to the lukewarm reception given to their new MySpace Videos section. This new service co-opts the technologies behind YouTube and Google Videos to deliver user-uploaded videos in embeddable flash players. And as with Youtube and Google, these videos can easily be integrated with a Myspace Profile by cutting and pasting the embeddable video code. These are the only two things that Google Videos and Youtube have in common with Myspace Videos.

Finding any decent content on Myspace is futile. There are hardly any videos of quality, let alone videos not depicting a lousy webcam shot vlog of a stupid lush behaving like an idiot. The videos look like crap when you watch them: lots of chunkiness and video noise. Uploading videos to MySpace couldn’t be more difficult. I have to click through three pages of steps before I can upload the video. I tried uploading several videos and none of them worked. To add insult to injury, each time the file upload failed, I would have to start again at page one. And lets not forget the ominous tone of this warning…

Note: If you upload Porn, your MySpace.com account will be deleted.

Although I’m itchin’ to know what the company that brought us close to fascism deems pornographic, I am going to give Myspace the benefit of the doubt. That is, I will not forfeit my MySpace account if they roll back the new guidelines on posting embeddable content. MySpace… you’re on notice!

UPDATE April 30, 2006 @ 23:16
The Youtube video I posted showing Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report was taken down. C-SPAN, the owner of the video, claimed Youtube infringed on its copyright; however, they have permitted Google Video to show the same video. [via]

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Advertisements

April 30, 2006 Posted by | Google Video, MySpace, technology, youtube | 2 Comments

What do Blogs, Myspace, and Flickr have in common?

A few nights ago, I attended a presentation by Jeffrey Zeldman of A List Apart. I wasn’t sure why Zeldman had been invited to Pratt by the Special Library Association, but as it turns out his wife is a librarian.

Zeldman talked at great length and quick clip about web usability, but much of what he said I’ve heard before. He made a few novel statements comparing MySpace and Flickr. He describes Myspace as a hierarchy with heavily-linked users on the top competing to add more friends. Beneath them are users trying to add friends by giving patronage to the users above them. At the bottom are users with few or no links who hardly get noticed by the group at the top of the pyramid. In this way, Myspace has a lot of similarities with how blog influence is measured. An even more striking comparison are the similarities between blogs and scholarly communication networks, but we’ll save that discussion for another occasion. Flickr is also a social networking site. It is a social networking site where users create a personal account and upload their photos to store and share online. Similar to MySpace, Flickr users can link up to one another, but they differ, according to Zeldman, because Flickr is not a Feudal System where users on the top throw their table scraps to those below. On Flickr, users are motivated to link up with one another not because of the status, but because they connect with the user’s photography.

I’m not ready to dismiss Zeldman’s analysis, but I do find it hard to compare the two. It presumes that Flickr users are anything at all like MySpace users, which nobody really knows. It also suggests that there is only one type of MySpace user, a primitive driven soul with a greedy appetite for friends that cannot be satisfied.

True, there are a lot of MySpace users who compulsively add friends. Take this guy. Just who in the hell does he think he is? There are also plenty of users who sign-up for one reason or another and never engage with the community. These users sink to the bottom where they rest unless somehow motivated to participate.

There is atleast one other type of user, who is not fully understood. I believe a substantial part of the MySpace community is composed of users who are not focused on linking as much as Zeldman would have us believe. Instead, they maintain a manageable set of friends, 25-100 (many of which they know personally). This collection of friends grows over time, but it is also weeded periodically. The weeding reduces the number of pages a user has to click through to find one of his or her friends. A great deal of time is spent by this concientious user to keep his or her profile in good shape. The user’s profile is manicured regularly (sometimes like a Japanese Garden though oft times like a Megadeath Concert). As every good neighbor should, the user stops by his or her friends’ profiles when the weather is nice just to say hi.

The only three social networking sites that have not been complete failures are MySpace, Friendster, and Facelift (or whatever you call it). To throw Flickr into the mix just because users can upload a buddy icon or forward a flickr stream to a friend betrays the enthusiasm and activity of the Myspace community. Even the proliferation of YouTube has occured largely without the relationship-building necessary to sustain a site like MySpace.

Comment threads like this one from YouTube are not unlike many found on actively circulating videos…
YouTube Thread
Notice that less than a third of the users link to any friends at all while a greater proportion post their own content. This suggests that while being able to post comments to a Youtube video is a valuable feature, having copious links with other users is much less significant. For now, the relationship between Myspace and Flickr seems to be limited to me posting incriminating photos of my friends from my Flickr account to their MySpace profiles.

Technorati Tags: web2.0 Flickr MySpace YouTube Zeldman

April 20, 2006 Posted by | Authors, Blogging, flickr, Information Science, Internet, Jeffrey Zeldman, MySpace, Science, technology, Web 2.0, youtube | 5 Comments

old news, but…

I just read that Star Wars Kid, Ghyslain Raza, has settled a lawsuit with a group of youth who posted a historic video on the Internet. The video, which depicts Raza “training” for battle in a school tv studio spread like wildfire, and we all know what happened next.

April 18, 2006 Posted by | Culture, Humor, Society, technology, video, youtube | Leave a comment

How to break the back of the Internet

Strange and gifted, fifty-eight year old author Bruce Kushnick of Teletruth.org made some startling prognostications about the future of the Internet. At a conference held in DC called Freedom to Connect, Kushnick railed against the Bells for scrapping the deployments of numerous fiber optic Internet infrastuctures around the country even though they promised a highspeed network. Notes of his talk are posted on DanaBlankenhorn.com. These are frightening in their implications, given the recent defeat of an amendment [via] to The Telecommunications Act that would have prevented the Bell(s) from commodotizing bandwidth on the Internet’s network backbone. It suggests that some time in the near future, The Bells will be making an already slow Internet even slower for those content creators who cannot afford to utilize their HOV lane on the information superhighway. Reminds me of the bit by comedian Patton Oswald describing the end of the world.

F—ing volcanoes spewed menstrual blood into the sky and it formed into Avril Lavigne’s face and she recited the ‘Good Will Hunting’ screenplay and the words turned into sentient razors that bored into your flesh, and George Bush was president, and mediocrity held sway! [via]

Full Disclosure: I am a volunteer for Teletruth.org

Technorati Tags: Net Neutrality Broadband

April 9, 2006 Posted by | Authors, Bruce Kushnick, Internet Speed, net neutrality | 8 Comments

Then how come I can’t remember me pin number? -Ali G

Tasnim Abbas Raza of 3QuarksDaily wrote this essay last week about computers and the brain. It took me a few readings to get through it all, but his basic premise is based on a book by Jeff Hawkins, inventor of the Palm and founder of The Redwood Center for Theoretical Neuroscience. Hawkins’ book, On Intelligence argues that the human brain is made of billions and billions of feedback loops. Its been a while since I read it, so I apologize for this lame recapitulation. These feedback loops are sending signals from your sensory organs to your memory and back again all the time and making the best guess as to how to enterprete these sensations based on past experiences.

In one particularly enlightening passage, Hawkins describes the sensation of getting his bicycle out of the garage. He’s done it before a thousand times, so it has become quite natural. When he puts his foot on the pedal, the pressure exerted against his foot is a familiar cue that reminds his brain what to do next.

To expand on this further, I am an excellent typist (85 wpm, no joke) because I’ve done it so much. The moment I put my fingers on the keyboard, my mind recollects the sensation of the keys on my fingertips along with perhaps hundreds of other invisible cues (ie my posture, the sound of the click clack of the keyboard, etc.) from the countless times I’ve done this before. In a sense, I’ve hardwired my brain for typing. This enable me to switch to a kind of autopilot where I don’t have to think about the countless steps involved in executing a simple keystroke (starting perhaps with identifying the strange symbols on weird contraption and which one to push, how hard to push it, how long to hold it down, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.). I just sit down and go. Its hard to conceive of how many times this happens every moment. But, if you’ve ever watched a beginning computer user try and operate a computer, they have a very different thought process. Rather than, ‘click here, click here, type here,’ a computer neophyte has to start with the more basic instructions. ‘Move mouse up, arrow thingy goes up. Move mouse left, arrow thingy goes left. Get arrow thingy over blue words, push mouse button repeatedly with sufficient force to destroy its delecate components.’

In addition, Hawkins asks us to imagine if one day you took one step and the ground, rather than being where you expect it to be, wasn’t there. Your neurons would fire madly trying to figure out what is happening, but perhaps there would be no past memory to elucidate it. You take another step and again, the ground is not where you have always known it to be. From what I gather, it is at this point that you realize that your trip to the Grand Canyon has ended in disaster, but the mind is built to adapt to these types of perceptual changes. If while typing this blog, the keyboard instantly becomes a cheesebuger, my senses will immediately send a signal ‘you’re typing on a bun, you’re typing on a bun, you’re typing on a bun.’ Since I do not expect my keyboard to turn into a delicious sandwich, it kind of shuts off the autopilot and I then immediately engage my critical faculties and figure out what to do next. (In this case, probably get some ketchup).

The 3QuarksDaily piece is rather interesting, but I have a couple problems with it. Tasnim’s essay purports to be about the brain, but he does not at all discuss the brain in this essay. It is a series, however, so I expect more to come. Second, Tasnim’s premise is that the human brain works like a computer, combining tiny units of instruction into more complex instructions and connecting facets together into long strings of action.

Here’s what happens in my brain when I hear her request: I break it down into a series of smaller steps something like

Get bread: START

1. Get money and apartment keys.
2. Go to supermarket.
3. Find bread.
4. Pay for bread.
5. Return with bread.
6. END.

Each of these steps is then broken down into smaller steps. For example, “Go to supermarket” may be broken down as follows:

Go to supermaket: START

1. Exit apartment.
2. Walk downstairs.
3. Turn left outside the building and walk until Broadway is reached.
4. Make right on Broadway and walk one and a half blocks to supermarket.
5. Make right into supermarket entrance.
6. END.

Similarly, “Exit apartment” is broken down into:

Exit apartment: START

1. Get up off couch.
2. Walk forward three steps.
3. Turn right and go down hallway until the front door.
4. If door chain is on, undo it.
5. Undo deadbolt lock on door.
6. Open door.
7. Step outside.
8. END.

Well, you get the idea. Of course, “Get up off couch” translates into things like “Bend forward” and “Push down with legs to straighten body,” etc. “Bend forward” itself translates into a whole sequence of coordinated muscular contractions. Each muscle contraction is actually a series of biochemical events that take place in the nerve and muscle fibres, and you can continue breaking each step down in this manner to the molecular or atomic level.

I do not dispute this is happening, but what Hawkins argues is that the brain is not at all like a computer. The brain is sending billions and billions of signals back and forth from the sensory organs to the memory. The brain is in a constant state of alert, monitering every aspect of conscious existence (and unconcious too I imagine) and making predictions about what will happen next. When I put my foot down, the ground will be there. If the ground is not there, the memory has no basis for making the next prediction. Such is the case when walking hastily down a flight of stairs. You get to the bottom and you put your foot down expecting the ground to be there and its not. Oops, you forgot the last step. Your body falls forward, but your arms reach out automatically to grab something for support or you position yourself for a softer landing.

When a computer experiences an unexpected problem, we all know what happens. You try to open a shortcut on your desktop but you forgot that you deleted the program. So when you doubleclick the shortcut, your computer buzzes for a few seconds and then says ‘hey this program isn’t where its supposed to be. Now what.’ If the computer had a brain like a human, it would react by saying, ‘you dumbass, you deleted that program last week because you updated it to a newer version. Here, let me change this shortcut for you so it works.’

Another problem I have with Tasnim’s writing is his explanation of computer processes. In order to add strength to his argument about the hierarchical functioning of both the brain and the computer, Tasnim attempts to write in a hierarchical style. He starts by explaining two or more basic concepts in clear English, then he combines them into a more complex concept, believing that the reader should be able to make the ‘logical leap’ to understanding. This doesn’t work to good affect. For one thing, its very difficult to connect abstract concepts that you’ve just learned. As I said before, reading this essay took several days. I had to go through it piece by piece, working out each section before I could go onto the next one.

The best way I can explain this is going back to high school. I’m sitting in Algebra class, trying to figure out what the hell is going on. The teacher is writing a problem on the board. She asks me if I can solve it. I try and fail because my mind has not resolved it because I have never seen such a problem. The teacher then explains to me step by step how to solve the problem in a way I understand it. That night, I get home and I start on my algebra homework. By Tsanim’s explanation, I should have no trouble breaking the problem down into its constituent parts and solving it the way I have seen earlier in the day. But that does not actually happen. I try to remember the steps that my teacher told me, but since I only saw her do the problem once, the instructions are incomplete and difficult. I get stuck, I make a mistake, I don’t know what part to do next. The next day, the teacher asks me to solve the algebra problem. I explain to her that I couldn’t figure it out, and so she explains it to me. At this point, I experience the visceral sensation of ‘getting it.’ The instructions that she gave me earlier were good, but I needed to attach them somehow to my own experiences with the given problem in order to conceptualize it. I have now seen the my own error in conceptualizing the problem and have resolved it, so when I go home that evening, I am able to solve a different algebra problem much easier.

Computers don’t work like that. They follow very explicit instructions that allow them to solve a particular type of problem over and over again. See Turing Machine. They don’t often make guesses although some computer chips are designed to make predictions about what might happen next in order to make the machine run faster.

Overall, I enjoyed Tasnim’s article, but I have seen better primers on how computers work. One is a very useful e-book (which I found pre-del.icio.us, so I can’t link to it). I will post a link to it in my next entry, IF I CAN REMEMBER WHERE I PUT IT.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

April 7, 2006 Posted by | Authors, Jeff Hawkins, neuroscience, technology | 4 Comments