TrueJournals

Facebook is starting to become MySpace.

When facebook started, it was a great idea: provide a way for college kids to easily find and communicate with their old high school, and current college friends.  A simple, easy form of communication to link people who physically know each other.  Then, they opened up registrations, a little at a time, and, now, anybody is free to join Facebook.

This was OK at first too, though.  It was still a great way to communicate across generations, or with people in other states or even countries that you physically have met.  It enabled people to plan events, and share what’s on their mind, all while keeping a standard layout, something which MySpace never guaranteed.  It would seem that the reason MySpace died in popularity, and the reason Facebook gained popularity, was the customization of MySpace profiles, the communication aspect of Facebook, and the reputation that MySpace had recieved over the years.

But, it seems that Facebook is drifting away from its innovation.  The first step towards this was e-mailing you when something happens.  This has always annoyed me.  The settings for e-mails in facebook are “E-mail me if X happens” or “Don’t e-mail me if X happens”.  So, if I want to be notified if someone replies to a thread that I’m part of, I will be sent an e-mail any time anyone replies to that thread.  If I don’t, I won’t be notified at all, and will have to visit Facebook (which I often forget to do).

This creates a lot of spam in my inbox.  In a thread even just between five people, if thoughts are flying back and forth, my inbox gets filled up with e-mail from facebook quickly.  So, facebook needs to take a hint from forums.  Offer a third option: notify me on the first event.  This should send you an e-mail saying “Someone replied to thread X” when someone replies to a thread you’re part of.  Then, it should wait until you actually view the new messages in the thread before sending you another e-mail that someone replied.  On top of that, take into account things you’re notified of when browsing the site.  If I’m on facebook, and someone writes on my wall, the website tells me this.  Don’t also send me an e-mail, it just gets annoying.

But this isn’t the only way facebook is becoming a virus.  I noticed something interesting happening the other day.  A friend of mine took a quiz, and I saw it in the “news feed” on my main page.  So, I took the quiz to see what my result would be.  Soon after, another three or so of my friends had also taken that same quiz.  It’s hard to say whose quiz-taking inspired these others, but this spread of wildfire is very virus-like.

Some, though, might call this the wonder of social web.  That things are happening this quickly, and that we can see them in real-time is a miracle of modern technology.  But, have we gone too far with this?  When something exhibits the qualities of a virus, how long does it take for us to break down and just call it a virus?

This type of action is, in my opinion, what caused MySpace to fail.  I think Facebook is a needed hub of communication, but I think that if it continues on its current trajectory, it will just wind up in a crash landing.

So, it seems that Facebook has become the new, and is taking the path of, MySpace.

Let me repeat that.  It appears that the next device Nokia is going to release with the Maemo operating system is a phone.

This device is supposed to be all we thought it would be.  Only, there are a couple major differences from what we thought it would be.  First off, we thought it would be a data-only connection, with voice coming later.  Secondly, we thought there would be a 4″ screen (based on the previous tablets).  Finally, it appears that, due to the phone aspect, it will be locked into a carrier.  If leaked information is right (and Nokia internals seem to confirm this), then the leak is absolutely correct, and… we’re screwed.

When I bought my Nokia 770, I thought it was the coolest thing I had seen.  I wasn’t looking for a phone (I don’t have a cell plan… don’t have much need for one… yet…), yet this was a device that I could carry around and browse the web, etc.  It wasn’t terribly powerful, but that was OK.  Then, I got a N800, which blew me away.  It was amazingly faster, and I thought it did a great job at what it was designed to do: an Internet Tablet.

Recently, the maemo community has been trying to pull itself together (not without objection).  The maemo website has been redone, beta SDKs have been released, Internet Tablet Talk has been moved to talk.maemo.org, and it seems like everyone is waiting for a new device.  It seems that Internet Tablet Talk moving to talk.maemo.org was a key point to Nokia’s next device.  If they were not going to put out an Internet Tablet, but instead release a phone, they couldn’t have a website called Internet Tablet Talk talking about Maemo, now their phone operating system.  So, what did they do?  They decided to “pull the community together,” and remove “Internet Tablet” from Maemo.

Now, I don’t think the development of a phone is a terrible idea, and it’s where Maemo needs to go, but I’d like to see Nokia keep the Internet Tablet spirit, while adding phone features.  The spirit of the Internet Tablets was to have a pocketable device that you could take and get internet anywhere, and have a nice, good-sized, good resolution, 4″ screen.  This, to me, seems like the perfect screen size for this device.  It’s small enough to be pocketable, but big enough to be readable.  Yet, with the next Maemo device, Nokia is downsizing, but keeping resolution.

What does this mean?  It means that text will be smaller.  One of the design points of Maemo 5 was to make the interface “finger friendly” (this hinted at the lack of a stylus in the next device).  However, putting the same resolution on a smaller screen means that UI components now need to be huge.  It seems that this is a step backwards.  We will have more processing power, so we want a bigger screen, so we can do more with it.  Higher resolution, right?  Well, Nokia cheated at this.  By making the screen smaller, but keeping the resolution the same, they have a higher DPI, which will be percieved as a higher resolution.

But, is this really what’s best for Nokia and Maemo?  Nokia is clearly trying to get Maemo devices more mass-marketed.  They seem to believe, due to the low sales of previous internet tablets, that Maemo will be better off in a phone.  Phones just generally sell more.  Or do they?  Nokia advertised the internet tablets just about not at all, and Apple, with the iPod Touch, has proved that there is a market for a portable WiFi computing device that can fit in a pocket.  Sure, the internet tablets were designed with Nerds in mind, but I think that if Nokia worked on marketing the internet tablets, there would have been a bigger market.

However, this is the benefit of phones: Nokia doesn’t need to do any advertising.  Sure, there are advertisements for phones, but, generally, advertisements are for phone networks.  The network sells you the phone, and advertises for whichever one makes them the most money.  But, when you go in to buy a phone, all the phones are out on display, and you can pick which one you want.  Not once did I ever see an internet tablet “out on display”.  So, the phone market creates free advertising.

Overall, I’m disappointed that this is the direction that Nokia is moving with the Mameo platform.  I liked the internet tablets being a niche device that no one else has.  I enjoyed showing off my nerdiness by pulling a computer out of my pocket.  Now, it’ll just be another smart phone.  No big deal.  Everyone has one of those.

Woah.  Here’s a scary topic.  Talking about science and religion in the same blog post.  That’s dangerous.  Look, I even put them next to each other in the title! I must really be crazy. Or, more hopefully, I have some interesting thoughts.  Let me start out with a quote from the book (and movie) Angels and Demons:

Science and religion are not at odds.  Science is just to young to understand.

In preparation for going to Fermilab, my AP Physics C class has been learning about quantum physics and string theory.  I find all of this rediculously fascinating.  Yet, when I start hearing dates, it sounds like all of this was figured out so long ago.  Then, I look at the LHC (Large Hadron Collider), and realize that the greatest discoveries are yet to come, and are even within my lifetime.

For those unaware, I’ll start off with quantum physics (which we know to be true).  The scale of things in quantum physics goes like this: an object is made of atoms.  These atoms contain electrons orbiting a neucleus.  This neucleus contains protons and neutrons.  And (this is where quantum mechanics comes in), protons are made of smaller pieces called quarks.  Without going into too much detail, there are six types of quarks, but we only need two of them to make up protons and neutrons.  So, to make up everything we normally see, we only need two quarks and an electron.  This sounds nice, but it leaves some mathematical gaps.

This is where string theory comes in.  String theory says that these quarks are made up of tiny, vibrating bits of energy called strings.  Now, when I say tiny, I mean MINISCULE.  These strings are going to remain invisible to us for quite some time.  Also, there’s another problem.  In order for this to make sense, there needs to be not three or four dimensions, but eleven dimensions (one of time, three of space, and seven additional spatial dimensions).  Assuming that all of this is true, the math works out beautifully, and everything seems to make sense. (continue reading…)

I will continue to update this post throughout today and tomorrow with the latest developments of my caller ID research.

Sunday, 9:30 AM –I’ve discovered an interesting line while decompiling Comcast’s software (in an if statement which handles incoming messages):

(arg1.from[0].match(CALLER_ID_SERVICE_JID) || arg1.from[0].match(CALLER_ID_SERVICE_JID_TEST))

This means that comcast IS checking who the message is coming from.  Although, they seem to do something else if it’s not from one of these two addresses.  Also, what is CALLER_ID_SERVICE_JID_TEST?  I’ll have to do some more exploring!

Sunday, 1:44 PM — Hmm… some interesting declarations:

public static const CALLER_ID_SERVICE_JID_TEST:String=”vismedia02@comcast.net”;
public static const CALLER_ID_SERVICE_JID:String=”callerid_alert@comcast.net”;

Monday, 9:19 AM — I’ve discovered an interesting URL in the code — machenmusik.com — it’s the package for the caller id decoding function (so, the project should be hosted there).  However, it currently just gives a login prompt.  Very strange.  Anyway, I’m attempting to translate the caller ID decoding into python.  I’ll let others translate it from there.  We’ll see how this works out…

Monday, 3:18 PM — Well, after playing with the decompiled actionscript a bunch, I can’t get it to return any comprehensible output.  The same goes for the python I translated.  So, I’m kinda giving up right now due to lack of knowlege.  If someone else would like to pick up where I’ve left off, contact me and I can send you what I have so far…  It was worth a try, right?

Comcast has recently added a new feature to their digital voice service: caller ID anywhere.  Simply download a program on your computer, enter your comcast.net username and password, and you’ll get a small alert any time you get a call.  The same system allows comcast to show caller ID alerts on your TV.

So, how does this work?  Did comcast come up with some super-secret way to encode this data so no one but them can use it?  Nope; they’re simply using XMPP.

For those unaware, XMPP is a very nice concept: an open messaging protocol.  This means that companies don’t need to invent their own protocol, or shell out big bucks to use another protocol.  Just grab a server and client, and you have an instant messaging system.  XMPP is also designed to be expandible.  Is there a feature you need that it’s missing?  Just code it in, following the current specifications.  The problem with this is that different clients can conform to different specifications for things that aren’t part of the official protocol, but that’s another discussion.

Comcast decided to not reinvent the wheel, and just use XMPP, with a little twist.  If you already know a bit about XMPP, I’ll give you the stanza as a client receives it: (continue reading…)

A limerick:

There once  was a big, scary monster
… crap…

Inspired by: http://limerickdb.com/?257

No posts in a while
I have been busy with school
More soon, I promise

I’m sure you’ve seen the message before.  You try to log into a website you go to every now and then, and forget which password you used for it, or type something in wrong.  ”Sorry, this password is incorrect,” says the website.  You grumble to yourself and try again, paying little attention to the harmless message.  From a programmer’s perspective, it’s a bit more interesting than that.

With a SQL database backend, it’s quite easy to figure out a login problem.  It’s a simple matter of searching the databse for a username that is equal to the one the user entered.  If the password of that row matches the password the user entered (generally md5 encoded), then the user can login.  If it doesn’t, they get the “incorrect password” message, and if the username search returns zero rows, they get an “incorrect username” message.  Simple and secure, right?

Wrong.  The problem with telling the user that the password was the incorrect data entered is that it lets them know that the username is correct.  For someone legitimately logging into the website, this is great.  They know exactly what to fix, they fix it and move on.  For someone who doesn’t actually own the account, however, this message is a lot more interesting.

Potentially, a script could be written to try thousands, even millions of usernames all with the same password.  Once an “incorrect password” message is reached, the script can then try another list of thousands to millions of passwords, until it gets an account.  All automated, and very simple.

So, the solution is to not let the user know what’s wrong.  Just say “incorrect login details.”  Something is wrong, but we’re not gonna tell you what.  Good luck!  This will stop any username-guessing script.  Now, you can’t tell a valid username from an invalid username.  However, some websites like to have lists of their members, or the hacker may already know a username for some reason.  So, how do we combat this?

Login try limits.  After 5 failed attempts, lock out the IP address in question.  Any user who just typed something wrong should be able to get it right within five tries, and blocking the IP will stop from additional attacks.  However, some robots are more complex than this.

When it comes down to it, if someone really wants to get into your website, they will.  A botnet will millions of different IP addresses could foil the above scheme.  Additionally, proxies could get around this block.  It would seem that there is no way to keep a website secure.

The responsibility falls on the user, really.  Most websites say somewhere that if someone breaks into your account, they aren’t responsible.  Website admins should have really long annoying to type passwords, because they can easily save the password somewhere, and normal users should have passwords that are strong enough.  If you’re really worried that someone will break into your account, choose a better, longer password.

Or, do we need to go above and beyond passwords?  Is there a level of security past passwords that we have yet to reach.  A lot of computers now have fingerprint readers.  Could we have websites that require your fingerprint as your password?  How about an image?  A website could issue you a completely random image for your password.  You save this image, and have to upload it any time you want to login.  The image would have to be small enough to let dial up users be able to upload the image, but it could be big enough to be very, very random.

So, security isn’t perfect.  I doubt it ever will be.  If someone really, really wants to break into something, they will.  This is why we have jails.

You know what class this is?  P.E.  You know what that stands for?  Physical Excersise.

This quote is attributed to a P.E. sub at my high school.  I’m paraphrasing, because I don’t remember the actual words, but believe me: this phrase was actually uttered by a substitute P.E. teacher.  Perhaps this wasn’t the best way to start of the blog post.  Let’s go back a bit.

A couple weeks ago, I needed a form signed so I could go on a field trip.  All of my teachers need to sign a form saying that it’s OK for me to skip out on class, and acknowleging that they realize that I’m not going to be in class that day.  Granted, most teachers just sign the form without looking at the date, but that’s beside the point.

On this form, we also have to write which class we have each hour.  So, for my seventh hour class I wrote the following: Gym.  Seemed fine to me.  I go up to my teacher and have her sign it.  She first crosses out “gym” and writes “PE”, then signs the form (all without saying anything to me).  I thought this was slightly humorous.  I didn’t think much of it because, after all, the form was signed.  However, I’ve started to think more and more of this small action.

To me, and to most of the world, PE stands for Physical Education.  Education, to me, implies that I will learn something.  It could be useless information, and it could be useful information, regardless, I should learn something.  I would attribute a class like Health to this title.  It suits all the requirements: physical — You learn about how your body functions and how to keep yourself healthy; education — did I not just use the word learn?

Let me make this a bit more clear.  Here’s how Google defines eduction:

knowledge acquired by learning and instruction

Once again, the key words here are knowlege, learning, and instruction.  These are the three important requirements in order to have the “education part.”

I would define my “P.E.” class this year as anything but that.  It consists of:

Today we’re playing tennis.  Grab a ball, racket, and partner, and start playing tennis.

No instruction, no guidance, no help while attempting to play the sport, just a: “This is what we’re doing.  Go.”  So, where, then, does the education come in?

Freshman and sophomore year was different: we actually learned about the muscles and bones in our body.  We learned about what excersises work which muscles, and we were taught easy excersises to help keep us in shape.  Once again: we learned.  This was not gym class, it truly was physical education.

So, I suggest a reform of the class.  Because Illinois is the only state that still requires four years of gym P.E. in high school, we must be true to the classes title: teach us.  It doesn’t even have to be individual attention (although that would be nice).  But, at least inform us of the rules of tennis before telling us to play.  If you want to get really crazy, try to make us play by the rules.   If we are going to take Physical Education, let’s keep the Education there.

Although, I’ve heard an alternative suggestion: make P.E. half-classroom.  This alternative would suit Illinois perfectly.  We could still have a P.E. class, but we would actually learn.  Once the program got started, the school could start offering “specialized” P.E. classes, where you can learn about one specific topic.  You could then take the P.E. class that sounded most interesting to you, instead of being stuck in a general gym class.

After all this, I have to question my school’s definition of P.E.  I was always taught that P.E. stood for Physical Education (acronym finder agrees), but it seems the crazy old gym teacher is right: PE stands for Physical Excersise.

Due to a comment I recieved on my “Gym in High School” post, my reply, and some events of today, I feel that this subject needs revisiting.

It isn’t about whether you should or shouldn’t excersise.  It’s about how excersise is used as a punishment throughout middle school and high school.  Today, my class went out to play tennis.  As a warmup, we had to run down to the end of the tennis court and back twice (I use run lightly here, we could have jogged and been fine).  Eager to play tennis, I was the first jogging, and quickly got the two rounds complete.  A friend of mine, and another kid in my gym class were on pace with me, and we all three were done.

However, some of the other kids in my class are lazy.  I see this all the time: they either just walk, turn around half way, or find another way to pretend that they ran what was required.  As I was coming back the second time, I heard my gym teacher yelling something to the effect that they weren’t running, so had to redo the run.  Fine, whatever.  I had done what was required, so I shouldn’t have to worry.

Here’s where the problem comes in.  As I get back to my teacher, she tells me (and the other two kids running with me) that we’ll have to do one more time there and back.  I ask her why, noting that we had already ran there and back twice, and she tells me something along the lines of this:

Yeah, I know, but some of your classmates feel they didn’t need to do the whole thing, so now everyone has to run more.

And, here’s where I find the problem.  I ran what was required of me.  I know this, I’m sure the class knows this, and the teacher knows this.  Yet, because one or two people in my class are lazy (the teacher even named who the person was), I have to run more.  So, I propose a hypothesis to everyone reading this: group punishment does not work.

Teachers seem to love it.  Why single out kids, and deal with them individually when you can just make everyone do more work?  On top of that, peer pressure should cause the others to do what’s required of them in the future, right?

Wrong.  I have zero influence on the kids in my class who are lazy.  This is due to multiple factors: they are in a different social group than I am, I try to avoid associating myself with them, and (not trying to sound conceited here… you have to trust me that this is true) they are on a lower intellectual level than me.

In most classes, I don’t have this problem.  I take honors or AP classes, so I generally am in a class of smart people who are willing to do work required so they don’t have to face the punishment.  However, I have two classes that go outside this norm: gym physical education (my commentary on this correction is saved for another post), and my lit class (again, my commentary on this will be saved for another post).  Somehow, it seems that, when scheduling classes, they ignored intellectual level, and just stuck whoever in whatever gym class.

However, here’s where it stops making sense to me: there is another gym class the same hour that I have my gym class which has at least three people that are on the same intellectual level as me.  In my gym class, I can think of one person, maybe two people, that fit this description.  It seems that they took this group of people who they knew would goof off, and stuck me in with them.

So, while group punishment hinges on the assumption that peer  pressure is the greatest form of influence, this is not always true.  So, how can punishment be implemented to be successful?  Single the person out.  My school does this often for postive accomplishments, why not do it for negative influences?  Make the person do thirty pushups while everyone else just watches.  This will cause embarassment, distress, etc., hopefully fixing the behavior.

Of course, this keeps the idea of using excersise as a punishment.  But, perhaps that’s OK for people who are going to goof off anyway.  We can let them think of excersise as a punishment, and let them grow fat and stupid as the rest of us thrive.  As my Physics teacher so often says:

We call that natural selection.

Phew… It’s about time I’ve made another blog post.  Show week always keeps me busy…

Anyway, let me preface this post by saying this: I’m 18.  The following contains my view of things from my perspective.  I could be completely wrong.  In fact, it would be awesome if some economy expert visited my blog and posted a comment about how wrong I am, but that probably won’t happen.  Now, on to the actual post!

I get annoyed when watching TV sometimes.  It’s one particular commercial strand.  From Wal-Mart, at that!  It’s their commercials about how going to Wal-Mart to get food is cheaper than going out, so you should buy food from Wal-Mart, because you need to save money in these poor economic times.  Makes sense, right?

Wrong.  In fact, this advice will only help destroy the economy wrong.  Wal-Mart is absolutely right: our economy isn’t doing that great right now.  However, they suggest a terrible way to fix it: stop spending money.  This is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done, and what the governemnt is trying to get done to fix the economy. (continue reading…)