There's the old joke of two folks eating in a restaurant who are (probably once again) kveching:
"Oy, this food is terrible!"
"It sure is! And the portions are so small!"
It's amazing and pretty disgusting to me how many folks apply a similar attitude on the Web. I think everyone has a right to complain, but if you don't like the food... don't spit in the kitchen, just stop going to the restaurant (and perhaps post a negative review somewhere if you wish).
Friendster and other social networks
First, let me preface this by saying I'm not much of a fan of Friendster. It's slow (really really REALLY slow), feature-poor, and it has basically devolved into an "I'm more trendy and freaky and have more piercings than you!" smugfest. Oh, and the guy who conceived the project is seemingly a humorless boob.
But with that said, it's still a private company, running its own servers, set up by its own programmers without the use of public money.
So I tried it, gave up on it, and have chosen to show my dislike of the service by no longer using it. Pretty simple, eh?
But for countless others, they see Friendster's penchant for deleting fake profiles ("fakesters") and the like to be an outrage and a challenge. Therefore, despite the service's terms that these folks agreed to when signing up, these counter-culture rebels have taken to using scripts to create multiple fake profiles and engaging in other behavior to basically send a big "fuck you" to the Friendster creator, the Friendster staff, and many of the members who find it both unfunny and annoying to be indirectly linked to 50,000 others via Cookie Monster.
In my mind, it'd be like getting invited to an apartment party, finding the host to be rather disagreeable... but instead of just leaving, you jump up and down on the host's couches (in your shoes, no less). He asks you to please leave, since it's his apartment, after all, and you're a guest... but you tell him to stick his demands where the sun don't shine. After you're (understandably) forcibly ejected, you come back with thirty friends and all proceed to jump on top of the host's furniture. Hey, it's your right to have fun, isn't it?
Some equally maturity-challenged guests think it's funny, so they join in, too. Others, unsurprisingly, are annoyed and then leave the party for more sane territory.
Interestingly enough, similar rumblings are already occurring with orkut. Folks are complaining about restrictions on their profile photo, for instance, and instead of sending feedback to orkut or even making amusingly snarky posts in their blogs, they're having oh-so-much-fun by signing up as many different IDs (with goofy photos) as they can. I'm just waiting to see how long it is before some San Francisco hippies take to the street to protest orkut's dominant tyrany, the abridgement of their "first amendment rights!", and orkut's role in the fascist perpetuation of normalized and coercified group acquiescence. Their rallying chant, "We Rail | Against Jail | No more bans | We'll all hold hands!" (yes, I know it doesn't exactly rhyme, but that's never stopped protesters like this before).
Do I think everything at orkut is hunky dory? Certainly not, and indeed, I actually admire folks -- like Liz and Dana -- who have taken the time to voice their strong opinions about orkut's current flaws.
But on the whole, I think folks who are unhappy with orkut (or any other privately-owned-and-run service) have exactly two choices:
- stick with the service, but publicly or privately express concerns
- quit the service (and, yep, still publicly or privately express concerns if they wish)
In contrast, hanging on to the service while trying to undermine its intent or knowingly violate its terms is both rude and immature. Then again, living in San Francisco, I think those adjectives describe quite a bit of the 'trendy' protesters ("What's the protest this week, oh Moonshadow Cheese? I can't wait!"). And mind you, I may sound like a fuddy duddy, but anywhere else I'd be a flaming liberal. I even helped organize a street dance in the middle of Union Square a few months ago, and I have nothing against silliness and fun. But I also don't willingly abuse others' property / sites / etc.
Registration at the New York Times
I love reading the New York Times on the Web, and I'm grateful I can do so for free.
Others, however, are not quite so appreciative. Despite the fact that the New York Times collects a minimal amount of personally identifying info and the fact that one can use a disposable e-mail address to sign up, many people have started using 'community' IDs because they're either too lazy or too rebellious to offer the 30 seconds it takes for the one-time registration.
Why does the NY Times even ask folks to register? Well, it keeps their advertisers happy. It helps them figure out which articles are more popular in tandem with usergroup trends, and it also enables them to (I'd assume) serve more targeted ads: if you read the technology section regularly before other sections, I'm sure the NY Times could serve you more technology-oriented ads. Sounds good to me.
But believe it or not, I just spotted a site (which I won't even give the benefit of a link here) that urges people to share their registration username and password for the NY Times and other sites so others can use them to log on with. I hope the sites affected quickly blacklist the shared IDs.
I'm not sure whether these folks are paranoid ("Oh no, the NY Times may know that I clicked on their crossword puzzle page AND their travel page!") or selfish or simply wanting to stick it to The Man {gag}. And I don't know whether there are enough of these twits to actually threaten NY Times' tracking or advertising efforts. But I sure hope not. If enough jerks continue to abuse the concept of free content in exchange for minimal advertising, then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to fortell that more and more services will simply start to make their content available only via paid subscriptions.
And you'll have the wankers detailed above to thank.
Friday, January 30, 2004
No limits to human greed and obnoxiousness
Forget "evil," I am upset and angry that there appears no limit to simple human greed and obnoxiousness.
I've just deleted about the 20th piece of comment spam ("Nice blog, check out my casino link") on this blog. Of course, this pales in comparison to the 400+ e-mail spams I receive (150+ I must personally sift through) DAILY. But it irks and saddens me nonetheless.
Sure, I could install a special filter to try to quarantine the spam from the non-spam comments. I could even switch to a different blog software (at the cost of about 20 hours out of my already busy life) that offers more comment options.
And yeah, I could even just turn off my comments, like many others have done. But then this blog becomes purely a lecture and not a conversation, whereas I'm constantly hoping to move it more towards the latter!
So I'm just sick of this, knowing that it's basically an arms race.
I don't make much, if any money off of this blog; I do it because I enjoy writing, and I take pleasure in the fact that thousands of folks monthly seem to enjoy reading what I have to say.
But -- as other bloggers have frankly expressed -- when it becomes more of a hassle than a pleasure, I (and many other bloggers) will simply just throw up our arms and give up. And then the spammers will simply move on to the next medium, I suppose.
I'm hardly a violent person, but I'd so like for one of those creeps to try invading my personal space in real life so I could punch their lights out.
On a more philosophical note, I'm just deeply saddened (and worried) about how spammers seem to be effectively co-opting every revolutionary new communications medium. Already I've lost e-mails sent to me by friends because I accidentally trashed them as spam. So many lost opportunities, strained friendships, and so much wasted time that could have been spent in profitable or social pursuits... all because of spammers' greed and ammorality. I don't believe in hell, but if I did, I'd be delighted to see all of them having their nether regions being painfully singed in the netherworld.
I've just deleted about the 20th piece of comment spam ("Nice blog, check out my casino link") on this blog. Of course, this pales in comparison to the 400+ e-mail spams I receive (150+ I must personally sift through) DAILY. But it irks and saddens me nonetheless.
Sure, I could install a special filter to try to quarantine the spam from the non-spam comments. I could even switch to a different blog software (at the cost of about 20 hours out of my already busy life) that offers more comment options.
And yeah, I could even just turn off my comments, like many others have done. But then this blog becomes purely a lecture and not a conversation, whereas I'm constantly hoping to move it more towards the latter!
So I'm just sick of this, knowing that it's basically an arms race.
I don't make much, if any money off of this blog; I do it because I enjoy writing, and I take pleasure in the fact that thousands of folks monthly seem to enjoy reading what I have to say.
But -- as other bloggers have frankly expressed -- when it becomes more of a hassle than a pleasure, I (and many other bloggers) will simply just throw up our arms and give up. And then the spammers will simply move on to the next medium, I suppose.
I'm hardly a violent person, but I'd so like for one of those creeps to try invading my personal space in real life so I could punch their lights out.
On a more philosophical note, I'm just deeply saddened (and worried) about how spammers seem to be effectively co-opting every revolutionary new communications medium. Already I've lost e-mails sent to me by friends because I accidentally trashed them as spam. So many lost opportunities, strained friendships, and so much wasted time that could have been spent in profitable or social pursuits... all because of spammers' greed and ammorality. I don't believe in hell, but if I did, I'd be delighted to see all of them having their nether regions being painfully singed in the netherworld.
Two big, uh, points against Booble
I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV. But I did graduate from law school and I know a pretty open-and-shut case when I see one.
Booble, the "adult search engine" that is claiming to be a "parody" of Google, has been sent a takedown notice by the latter and has subsequently sent a defiant reply, perhaps just milking this for all the free publicity.
It's pretty clear to me that Booble's lawyers should have used training bras before filing their argument, because while they may be abreast of (mostly) relevant case law, they're nonetheless gonna be sadly deflated from a court loss.
Here's why:
- Booble has not done enough to be seen as a parody rather than a predator
Had the Booble folks been a little less airheady, they would have included a PROMINENT disclaimer at the TOP of their pages, rather than in tiny point at the bottom. Additionally, Booble is directly profiting from Google's likeness (via porn site sponsorships)!
- Booble is profiting from business in Google's space!
By positioning itself within Google's space, not only does Booble cause likely consumer confusion, it also directly competes with Google (where undoubtedly people seeking porn often turn to for their needs).
Booble's going down. The only questions are what damages will be assessed, and whether Booble will have the assets to pay up.
Booble, the "adult search engine" that is claiming to be a "parody" of Google, has been sent a takedown notice by the latter and has subsequently sent a defiant reply, perhaps just milking this for all the free publicity.
It's pretty clear to me that Booble's lawyers should have used training bras before filing their argument, because while they may be abreast of (mostly) relevant case law, they're nonetheless gonna be sadly deflated from a court loss.
Here's why:
- Booble has not done enough to be seen as a parody rather than a predator
Had the Booble folks been a little less airheady, they would have included a PROMINENT disclaimer at the TOP of their pages, rather than in tiny point at the bottom. Additionally, Booble is directly profiting from Google's likeness (via porn site sponsorships)!
- Booble is profiting from business in Google's space!
By positioning itself within Google's space, not only does Booble cause likely consumer confusion, it also directly competes with Google (where undoubtedly people seeking porn often turn to for their needs).
Booble's going down. The only questions are what damages will be assessed, and whether Booble will have the assets to pay up.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Can't Buy Me Love, but CAN buy a girlfriend!
I just learned (via Kottke.org) that there's a new crazy trend on ebay for women to be selling themselves as "Imaginary Girlfriends."
I kidd you not. Yes, you, too can receive loving letters, occasional (oft pre-scheduled) IMs, and sometimes even other assorted, uh, goodies from some (supposedly female) mercenary.... for just $19.95 -- or in some cases, as much as $250 (!)
I don't know what's sadder: the sellers or the pathetically-eager buyers. On a deeper level, it's most sad that folks are apparently so desperately both craving connections and unable to attain such real connectedness. I guess this explains much of the "Reality TV" craze, too. Don't have a social life or real friends? That's okay, you can bond with and live your life through those 'real' people on the screen!
I kidd you not. Yes, you, too can receive loving letters, occasional (oft pre-scheduled) IMs, and sometimes even other assorted, uh, goodies from some (supposedly female) mercenary.... for just $19.95 -- or in some cases, as much as $250 (!)
I don't know what's sadder: the sellers or the pathetically-eager buyers. On a deeper level, it's most sad that folks are apparently so desperately both craving connections and unable to attain such real connectedness. I guess this explains much of the "Reality TV" craze, too. Don't have a social life or real friends? That's okay, you can bond with and live your life through those 'real' people on the screen!
Saturday, January 24, 2004
Fascinating perceptions of online social networks
I was just chatting with a smart British friend of mine about the new social networking site, orkut.com, and it was like we were speaking a different language.
She simply couldn't fathom why anyone "would need a computer program to make friends," and, to my great surprise, she hadn't even heard of Friendster. This, mind you, is a highly-educated woman who works in technology for goodness sake. And here I thought that the only people who hadn't heard of Friendster had been living under a rock for the last few years.
This friend, however, is not the only person who questions the worth of online social networks. Though opinions are certainly shifting, many folks continue to label services like Match.com as crutches for people who are too ugly or socially inept to get a date "in the real world." Similarly, I've heard and read various folks joke about how sites like Tribe.net and Ryze.com and such are populated by people who want to leech (socially and professionally), but have little or nothing to give in return.
Clearly, from my standpoint at least, these views are misguided. In particular, it can be both amusing and stunning to note some of the active users on the various networking sites.
From my cursory searches on orkut.com alone, in fact, I've found CEOs of major companies, authors of best-selling books, and many more folks who clearly aren't of the sort one would see as stereotypically needing the social or business connections.
Or, for that matter, romantic connections.
There's a particular woman on orkut.com, for instance (whom I'll call Janelle) that is a striking example of the mismatch between traditional perceptions and reality. Janelle is one of the most powerful and publicly known executives of a major publishing company. She's highly personable, extremely bright, quite articulate and rather attractive to boot.
She's also, as she notes on her orkut profile, single, and interested in dating. And no, I won't give you a link to her profile! :D
---
My point is that these online networks clearly serve to augment, rather than replace in-person socializing, business schmoozing, and flirting. Indeed, from my experience, sites like Tribe.net and Orkut tend to feature folks who are already largely social beings; these online services are just another outlet for their exploration and connection.
But I've rambled on long enough. Now I have to figure out how I can get on Janelle's radar without sending her a dorky note :D
She simply couldn't fathom why anyone "would need a computer program to make friends," and, to my great surprise, she hadn't even heard of Friendster. This, mind you, is a highly-educated woman who works in technology for goodness sake. And here I thought that the only people who hadn't heard of Friendster had been living under a rock for the last few years.
This friend, however, is not the only person who questions the worth of online social networks. Though opinions are certainly shifting, many folks continue to label services like Match.com as crutches for people who are too ugly or socially inept to get a date "in the real world." Similarly, I've heard and read various folks joke about how sites like Tribe.net and Ryze.com and such are populated by people who want to leech (socially and professionally), but have little or nothing to give in return.
Clearly, from my standpoint at least, these views are misguided. In particular, it can be both amusing and stunning to note some of the active users on the various networking sites.
From my cursory searches on orkut.com alone, in fact, I've found CEOs of major companies, authors of best-selling books, and many more folks who clearly aren't of the sort one would see as stereotypically needing the social or business connections.
Or, for that matter, romantic connections.
There's a particular woman on orkut.com, for instance (whom I'll call Janelle) that is a striking example of the mismatch between traditional perceptions and reality. Janelle is one of the most powerful and publicly known executives of a major publishing company. She's highly personable, extremely bright, quite articulate and rather attractive to boot.
She's also, as she notes on her orkut profile, single, and interested in dating. And no, I won't give you a link to her profile! :D
---
My point is that these online networks clearly serve to augment, rather than replace in-person socializing, business schmoozing, and flirting. Indeed, from my experience, sites like Tribe.net and Orkut tend to feature folks who are already largely social beings; these online services are just another outlet for their exploration and connection.
But I've rambled on long enough. Now I have to figure out how I can get on Janelle's radar without sending her a dorky note :D
Friday, January 23, 2004
The New (much) Improved Friendster
Well, if you're as much of a geek as I am -- or even if you just are a geek wannabe and voraciously read the tech rags -- you've likely already heard about Orkut.com.
Well, I've had a chance to play with it for a day or so, and it's rather fascinating. Though clearly not-yet-perfect, it's still fun and quite a bit ahead of Friendster in many ways.
Let me get some criticisms and concerns out of the way first:
- There aren't enough checks and balances
It's too easy to add (and then be unable to un-add) a friend, delete a message, and so on. There are no "Are you sure?" screens. Aside from preventing 'oops' moments, I think it would at least be helpful to gently remind folks to carefully choose their friend links, as in "By adding this person as a friend, you're making a statement that you know and like this person. Are you sure you want to do this?" Otherwise, the system is more apt to end up with a zillion useless/meaningless friend linkages.
- As of yet, the search features are anemic
You can search only by a small handful of esoteric and broad fields, and cannot search by company name, interests, etc... though indeed orkut.com has noted that this functionality is slated for future versions.
- Information display is far from optimal
On the search results page, the info you get is minimal on each person, and generally not enough to give you a good idea of whether it's worth your time to click through to their profile. Ideally, it'd be nice to be able to choose which data points are shown, but in the meantime, it'd be nice to at least see some professional info (e.g., company name) on such listings.
- The invite process is kludgy
You can't invite groups of friends, you can't (easily) individually customize the invite e-mails, and it seems you can't access a generic invite URL to send in your own e-mails.
- Me Too?
Perhaps one of the most frustrating aspects of orkut.com for me is that there's no real sense of its 'place.' It mingles in just enough romantic/flirty/goofy stuff to be potentially off-putting to serious business networkers, but it's unlikely to be enough to compete with Match.com, Yafro, and other friends-oriented networking services.
* * *
Okay, enough whining. There's certainly much to admire and appreciate in orkut.com!
- It's FAST!
Sure, this isn't that impressive YET given the limited member set (2464 members as of 2:40pm PST, and seemingly growing by about 50-100 every hour since this morning), but boy, that speed sure is refreshing right now! And given Google's track record on efficiency/speed, I am confident that orkut will remain delightfully quick on its feet.
- It's quite the A-List party at present
From my experience (and, biased-ly, my friendships), Google hires uber-intelligent and interesting folks. Given that at least 50% of the current orkut.com members seem to be Googlers, the service is starting with a pretty intellectual and powerful foundation.
- It has great potentialLook at past Google projects that started out as pet projects, like Google News. There is clearly a history of refinement and success with these projects, and while orkut.com is clearly not yet version 1.0 material due to needed feature enhancements and interface tweaks, it's certainly a fun and impressive beginning.
* * *
It'll be fascinating to see if -- or perhaps, more likely when -- orkut overtakes the slow-and-feature-poor-but-critically-massed Friendster.
Additionally, will Google's entrant into this market stimulate demand enough for online social networking so that more sites (including the stellar Tribe.net) will flourish by the expanding pie? Or will orkut.com -- like Google search, to a great extent -- basically crowd out all competitors? What do you think?
* * *
Added 1/24/04 5:16pm:
Wow, just got my first application error while browsing orkut. Bummer.
Well, I've had a chance to play with it for a day or so, and it's rather fascinating. Though clearly not-yet-perfect, it's still fun and quite a bit ahead of Friendster in many ways.
Let me get some criticisms and concerns out of the way first:
- There aren't enough checks and balances
It's too easy to add (and then be unable to un-add) a friend, delete a message, and so on. There are no "Are you sure?" screens. Aside from preventing 'oops' moments, I think it would at least be helpful to gently remind folks to carefully choose their friend links, as in "By adding this person as a friend, you're making a statement that you know and like this person. Are you sure you want to do this?" Otherwise, the system is more apt to end up with a zillion useless/meaningless friend linkages.
- As of yet, the search features are anemic
You can search only by a small handful of esoteric and broad fields, and cannot search by company name, interests, etc... though indeed orkut.com has noted that this functionality is slated for future versions.
- Information display is far from optimal
On the search results page, the info you get is minimal on each person, and generally not enough to give you a good idea of whether it's worth your time to click through to their profile. Ideally, it'd be nice to be able to choose which data points are shown, but in the meantime, it'd be nice to at least see some professional info (e.g., company name) on such listings.
- The invite process is kludgy
You can't invite groups of friends, you can't (easily) individually customize the invite e-mails, and it seems you can't access a generic invite URL to send in your own e-mails.
- Me Too?
Perhaps one of the most frustrating aspects of orkut.com for me is that there's no real sense of its 'place.' It mingles in just enough romantic/flirty/goofy stuff to be potentially off-putting to serious business networkers, but it's unlikely to be enough to compete with Match.com, Yafro, and other friends-oriented networking services.
* * *
Okay, enough whining. There's certainly much to admire and appreciate in orkut.com!
- It's FAST!
Sure, this isn't that impressive YET given the limited member set (2464 members as of 2:40pm PST, and seemingly growing by about 50-100 every hour since this morning), but boy, that speed sure is refreshing right now! And given Google's track record on efficiency/speed, I am confident that orkut will remain delightfully quick on its feet.
- It's quite the A-List party at present
From my experience (and, biased-ly, my friendships), Google hires uber-intelligent and interesting folks. Given that at least 50% of the current orkut.com members seem to be Googlers, the service is starting with a pretty intellectual and powerful foundation.
- It has great potentialLook at past Google projects that started out as pet projects, like Google News. There is clearly a history of refinement and success with these projects, and while orkut.com is clearly not yet version 1.0 material due to needed feature enhancements and interface tweaks, it's certainly a fun and impressive beginning.
* * *
It'll be fascinating to see if -- or perhaps, more likely when -- orkut overtakes the slow-and-feature-poor-but-critically-massed Friendster.
Additionally, will Google's entrant into this market stimulate demand enough for online social networking so that more sites (including the stellar Tribe.net) will flourish by the expanding pie? Or will orkut.com -- like Google search, to a great extent -- basically crowd out all competitors? What do you think?
* * *
Added 1/24/04 5:16pm:
Wow, just got my first application error while browsing orkut. Bummer.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
The scale of justice?
Tomorrow, my body-fat scale arrives!
In the meantime, I've been a good boy and have managed to follow my trainer's recommendation to consume just under 2,000 calories per day... at least on average.
Oh, thank goodness for averages!
Through the beauty of averaging over the past 6 days, I've managed to gorge myself on a humungous shared ice cream sundae (8 scoops of ice cream, 8 toppings, bananas, and nuts), multiple servings of popcorn, homemade cornbread, bbq ribs, and still stay under 2,000 calories a day.
How did I do it?
Well, for just $19.95, you can order my... Extra water, extra tea, less juice and more solid fruit, and an absence of corn chips 'n' chocolate bars in the apartment, for starters. That, and frankly, just being aware of what I was eating and having to write it down on a chart.
From what I can tell (albeit with my roomie's crappy, unreliable scale), I've lost about 2 pounds in 2 weeks... exactly my target. I hope to lose 15 pounds of fat by summertime (and I wouldn't be averse to gaining about 5 pounds of muscle at the same time).
Interestingly enough, none of this is really part of a "New Year's Resolution." The impetus came when I got three free personal training sessions this month, and in my first one, my trainer unambiguously told me I'm fat. As goofy as it sounds, that was what triggered me to finally tell myself "Self! It's really time to those love handles!"
And so far, my self is listening. Here's hoping he'll have a longer attention span than usual.
In the meantime, I've been a good boy and have managed to follow my trainer's recommendation to consume just under 2,000 calories per day... at least on average.
Oh, thank goodness for averages!
Through the beauty of averaging over the past 6 days, I've managed to gorge myself on a humungous shared ice cream sundae (8 scoops of ice cream, 8 toppings, bananas, and nuts), multiple servings of popcorn, homemade cornbread, bbq ribs, and still stay under 2,000 calories a day.
How did I do it?
From what I can tell (albeit with my roomie's crappy, unreliable scale), I've lost about 2 pounds in 2 weeks... exactly my target. I hope to lose 15 pounds of fat by summertime (and I wouldn't be averse to gaining about 5 pounds of muscle at the same time).
Interestingly enough, none of this is really part of a "New Year's Resolution." The impetus came when I got three free personal training sessions this month, and in my first one, my trainer unambiguously told me I'm fat. As goofy as it sounds, that was what triggered me to finally tell myself "Self! It's really time to those love handles!"
And so far, my self is listening. Here's hoping he'll have a longer attention span than usual.
State of the Union? No, a campaign speech
I simply couldn't stomach listening to Bush live, so I skimmed the transcript of his speech and read commentary from others.
This is supposed to be a non-partisan and informational speech to the citizens of the U.S. about how our country is doing, right?
Yeah, right.
Two conspicuous absences, in my mind:
- No mention of the Palestine / Israel conflict.
- No mention of the environment.
Guess those aren't really important issues.
What a jerk.
This is supposed to be a non-partisan and informational speech to the citizens of the U.S. about how our country is doing, right?
Yeah, right.
Two conspicuous absences, in my mind:
- No mention of the Palestine / Israel conflict.
- No mention of the environment.
Guess those aren't really important issues.
What a jerk.
Living a commercial (Or, "I love your hair!")
I go to the gayest hairdresser in the gayest part of town and -- as Seinfeld would say -- not that there's anything wrong with that. I wasn't even phased when the receptionist introduced himself to me last Halloween as "Penny. Penny Trayshun."
So why am I -- likely the only straight guy in the joint -- driving out of my neighborhood to get my hair cut at this place?
1) Bob, my stylist, is a hell of a cool guy. Interesting, reliable, talented.
2) He does an amazing job.
How do I know about #2?
Well, as I walked over to my gym after my most recent cut, the woman at the front desk said, "Thank you, enjoy your workout and... hey! Nice haircut!" as she smiled at me I think for the first time ever, "So modern!" And she's given me a flirty smile every time I've seen her since.
That would have been enough for my ego, but wait, that's not all (he says, infomercial-style). A few days later while kickboxing, the instructor interrupted one of his count-offs to boom in front of the class, "Nice haircut!" as he nodded in my direction. And while weightlifting this evening, the trainer walked over to me, tapped my shoulder, and said, "Grip a bit further in, good... oh, and nice haircut, Adam!"
Bushed after my weights class and resigned to grabbing food at home instead of sticking around for the step class I sometimes attend, a woman I recognized but have never spoken with caught me in the parking lot as she arrived, "Hey!" as she smiled at me, "Not doing step [class] tonight?" "Nah," I replied, "I'm beat!"
"See you Thursday?" she inquired hopefully.
Mind you, this is a hottie who I've seen a whopping two times at the gym and never even made eye contact with. And now I'm just imagining the kind of looks and flirting I'd get if I wore something other than cheap gym shorts and raggy t-shirts!
All I know is, next time I need to bring a bottle of wine for my hairdresser. :-)
January 26, 2004 -- Edited to add:
A couple of pictures, by popular demand :D
...and one "before" pic (albeit from about 2 years ago, but oh well):
So why am I -- likely the only straight guy in the joint -- driving out of my neighborhood to get my hair cut at this place?
1) Bob, my stylist, is a hell of a cool guy. Interesting, reliable, talented.
2) He does an amazing job.
How do I know about #2?
Well, as I walked over to my gym after my most recent cut, the woman at the front desk said, "Thank you, enjoy your workout and... hey! Nice haircut!" as she smiled at me I think for the first time ever, "So modern!" And she's given me a flirty smile every time I've seen her since.
That would have been enough for my ego, but wait, that's not all (he says, infomercial-style). A few days later while kickboxing, the instructor interrupted one of his count-offs to boom in front of the class, "Nice haircut!" as he nodded in my direction. And while weightlifting this evening, the trainer walked over to me, tapped my shoulder, and said, "Grip a bit further in, good... oh, and nice haircut, Adam!"
Bushed after my weights class and resigned to grabbing food at home instead of sticking around for the step class I sometimes attend, a woman I recognized but have never spoken with caught me in the parking lot as she arrived, "Hey!" as she smiled at me, "Not doing step [class] tonight?" "Nah," I replied, "I'm beat!"
"See you Thursday?" she inquired hopefully.
Mind you, this is a hottie who I've seen a whopping two times at the gym and never even made eye contact with. And now I'm just imagining the kind of looks and flirting I'd get if I wore something other than cheap gym shorts and raggy t-shirts!
All I know is, next time I need to bring a bottle of wine for my hairdresser. :-)
January 26, 2004 -- Edited to add:
A couple of pictures, by popular demand :D
...and one "before" pic (albeit from about 2 years ago, but oh well):
What was Disney thinking?
As you may have heard by now, Disney has begun field-testing its "EZ-D" DVDs that self-destruct after 48 hours.
Understandably, environmentalists are up in arms. But while I share in their disdain for this wasteful format, I have a different question to ask: What bozo set the price for these discs at $7 each?!
For about $7, I can go see a matinee on a BIG screen.
For about $8 on average, including shipping and handling, I can buy DVDs from a DVD club (via their intro package).
For about $10, I can actually buy single used DVDs (without any quality degredation), or -- on sale -- often new DVDs.
Via many online services, I can rent a DVD, complete with free postage-paid mailer, for about $3.
$7 for a disposable time-limited piece of plastic? It's not just an animated character that's Goofy, that's for sure.
Understandably, environmentalists are up in arms. But while I share in their disdain for this wasteful format, I have a different question to ask: What bozo set the price for these discs at $7 each?!
For about $7, I can go see a matinee on a BIG screen.
For about $8 on average, including shipping and handling, I can buy DVDs from a DVD club (via their intro package).
For about $10, I can actually buy single used DVDs (without any quality degredation), or -- on sale -- often new DVDs.
Via many online services, I can rent a DVD, complete with free postage-paid mailer, for about $3.
$7 for a disposable time-limited piece of plastic? It's not just an animated character that's Goofy, that's for sure.
It's not sex, dammit!
I was just reading an issue of the magazine Psychology Today and was surprised to notice an article named something like, "Sex and Autism."
That's pretty strange, I thought. People are catching the disease of autism from unprotected sex? Or people who don't get enough sex are more prone to becoming autistic? Or have sex may result in a child who may or may not be autistic (related headline: "Eating may lead to obesity")?
Actually, it was none of the above. The article actually was discussing how autism relates to GENDER.
Gender. Gender. Gender! Is that such a difficult word for the scientists and journalists to use? It's much more specific and straightforward than "sex," and certainly prone to fewer doubletakes and misunderstandings.
Really, I know it may seem petty, but as someone interested in social science and psychology issues among other things, I'm sick and tired of reading news stories and journal articles talking about "sex" when they should be using the word "gender." And I'm annoyed (okay, and disappointed) when I see an Web page titled "Sex in the classroom" and there aren't any pictures of naked college students.
So what's the deal here? Why are even some highly esteemed medical journals using the word "sex" instead of "gender" when there's such a possibility for confusion AND the latter word carries so much less unnecessary baggage? Am I missing something obvious here, or are a hell of a lot of writers just friggin' clueless?
Yes, I know that historically the word sex was used in prestigious social science and medical journals and such to refer to one's gender. But new words enter our lexicon and often rightly replace older, more ambiguous or charged words. Witness "rape." It used to refer not only to a forcible sexual assault, but also a generic kidnapping (which, I might add, certainly leads to some confusion and horrific expressions when some people see the older musical "The Fantasticks" for their first time, in which there's a song about a harmless kidnapping called "The Rape Ballet.")
So what's the deal with "sex"? And is it just me, or are others annoyed as well by the whole issue?
Then again, maybe I just need to get laid.
That's pretty strange, I thought. People are catching the disease of autism from unprotected sex? Or people who don't get enough sex are more prone to becoming autistic? Or have sex may result in a child who may or may not be autistic (related headline: "Eating may lead to obesity")?
Actually, it was none of the above. The article actually was discussing how autism relates to GENDER.
Gender. Gender. Gender! Is that such a difficult word for the scientists and journalists to use? It's much more specific and straightforward than "sex," and certainly prone to fewer doubletakes and misunderstandings.
Really, I know it may seem petty, but as someone interested in social science and psychology issues among other things, I'm sick and tired of reading news stories and journal articles talking about "sex" when they should be using the word "gender." And I'm annoyed (okay, and disappointed) when I see an Web page titled "Sex in the classroom" and there aren't any pictures of naked college students.
So what's the deal here? Why are even some highly esteemed medical journals using the word "sex" instead of "gender" when there's such a possibility for confusion AND the latter word carries so much less unnecessary baggage? Am I missing something obvious here, or are a hell of a lot of writers just friggin' clueless?
Yes, I know that historically the word sex was used in prestigious social science and medical journals and such to refer to one's gender. But new words enter our lexicon and often rightly replace older, more ambiguous or charged words. Witness "rape." It used to refer not only to a forcible sexual assault, but also a generic kidnapping (which, I might add, certainly leads to some confusion and horrific expressions when some people see the older musical "The Fantasticks" for their first time, in which there's a song about a harmless kidnapping called "The Rape Ballet.")
So what's the deal with "sex"? And is it just me, or are others annoyed as well by the whole issue?
Then again, maybe I just need to get laid.
Saturday, January 17, 2004
And when I sit around the house, I really sit AROUND the house
I suppose I should have seen it coming. I kind of did, actually.
But it took a professional's blunt assessment to hit the realization home in no uncertain words.
I'm fat.
I'm fat.
I'm really, really fat.
(with apologies to Weird Al).
Sure, I noticed that my jeans were a little snug. True, I've had love handles for nearly a decade now.
But... but... my resting heart rate is around 65bpm, I can yoga-cize my feet over my head (really!), and I could outrun and outkick the majority of my geek brethren, I'd think. I swing dance at least 5 hours a week, and I'm at the gym for about 3-5 hours a week on top of that. Not to mention the long flight of stairs up to my apartment, and...
My body fat is still apparently an embarrassingly high 23%. That's tub-o-lard territory. That's the sort of number that lousy 'n' lazy fatsos-eating-dorritos-while-watching-TV chalk up. And I'm not one of them! I'm fit and youthful and...
Deluded and fat.
---
I should have known that it was Fate that three free personal training sessions fell into my oversized lap. I suppose at least I should be grateful that my trainer's been gracious about dropping the whole flabbelation (flab + revelation) on me.
So anyway, I went online to order a body fat scale, and wouldn't you know it, Amazon.com was out. Devilishly determined and decidedly desperate, I then attempted to call places in The Real World (e.g., neighborhood stores) to see if they had any decent body fat scales in stock, but of course, they didn't either. A friend explained the situation to me in three words:
New. Year's. Resolutions.
(and, I could add: Lots. Of. Fatties.)
Great. I'm short. I'm fat. And I have no accurate scale. Well, drugstore.com sort of came to the rescue, so I'm getting one via UPS this Wednesday. Woo hoo!
But of course, that's just a tiny piece of the battle.
I'm actually having to get off of my seefood diet (you know, the one where ya see food, then eat it). It's no secret that I love to eat, in fact... my friends tease me about it, and it's become almost my goofy calling card at dance events ("Food!" I'd typically chant at the midnight hour of the dance's end, "Let's go grab some food!" And we often would, like that avocado bacon cheeseburger 'n' fries of 1400 calories I consumed last Saturday night).
Unsurprisingly, then, the first step to fixing a problem is understanding the problem. Beyond simply having me admit that there's more to me than meets the non-naked eye, so to speak, my trainer has insisted that I keep a detailed log of every bite and sip that goes through my lips, 24/7. And boy, let me tell you, I tried to find politically-correct ways to notate the aforementioned burger binge, but alas... nope, couldn't hide it.
Do you know how many calories are in a Krispy Kreme Donut? Or in a Double Double at In 'n' Out? Granted, the eating-out indulgences have been only an occasional thing for me (no, really), but even an occasional extra 1000-1500 calories at the end of the day stacks up, so to speak.
---
So, after about a week of keeping my food log, I've learned a lot.
- Excel isn't the optimum tool for making a food log, but it does the trick ("GEEK!").
- I would die a hungry and sad man if my microwave completely broke.
- Veggies and fruits are not a lately -- or at least frequent -- visitor in my household. Someone needs to invent bananas that don't turn brown in 3 days. I mean, what's up with that? But at least my trash can is getting his (her?) full servings of fruit this way.
- Pasta and bread each have a lot of calories, damn! Spaghetti dinner (with garlic bread and real salad) = one way ticket to Fat Farm.
- The people who determine and specify "serving sizes" should be shot. Two tablespoons of croutons = a serving my ass! (er, sorry, bad combo there).
- I can actually eat a HUGE amount of fresh turkey breast for comparatively few calories. Rock on!
---
No, don't worry. I'm not going to post pics of my belly (though, just so I can be one of those sexy-pathetic before 'n' after stories on posters, I've taken such pics). And I'm not going to bore you with exactly what I've been eating the past few days (hint: less than I'd like).
Instead, I'll just close this entry with a moral or a call to action or a pithy quote as I so often do, er, attempt, er...
dammit. It's no use. Have you ever tried to blog when you're hungry and craving a large steak 'n' prawn super burrito?!
But it took a professional's blunt assessment to hit the realization home in no uncertain words.
I'm fat.
I'm fat.
I'm really, really fat.
(with apologies to Weird Al).
Sure, I noticed that my jeans were a little snug. True, I've had love handles for nearly a decade now.
But... but... my resting heart rate is around 65bpm, I can yoga-cize my feet over my head (really!), and I could outrun and outkick the majority of my geek brethren, I'd think. I swing dance at least 5 hours a week, and I'm at the gym for about 3-5 hours a week on top of that. Not to mention the long flight of stairs up to my apartment, and...
My body fat is still apparently an embarrassingly high 23%. That's tub-o-lard territory. That's the sort of number that lousy 'n' lazy fatsos-eating-dorritos-while-watching-TV chalk up. And I'm not one of them! I'm fit and youthful and...
Deluded and fat.
---
I should have known that it was Fate that three free personal training sessions fell into my oversized lap. I suppose at least I should be grateful that my trainer's been gracious about dropping the whole flabbelation (flab + revelation) on me.
So anyway, I went online to order a body fat scale, and wouldn't you know it, Amazon.com was out. Devilishly determined and decidedly desperate, I then attempted to call places in The Real World (e.g., neighborhood stores) to see if they had any decent body fat scales in stock, but of course, they didn't either. A friend explained the situation to me in three words:
New. Year's. Resolutions.
(and, I could add: Lots. Of. Fatties.)
Great. I'm short. I'm fat. And I have no accurate scale. Well, drugstore.com sort of came to the rescue, so I'm getting one via UPS this Wednesday. Woo hoo!
But of course, that's just a tiny piece of the battle.
I'm actually having to get off of my seefood diet (you know, the one where ya see food, then eat it). It's no secret that I love to eat, in fact... my friends tease me about it, and it's become almost my goofy calling card at dance events ("Food!" I'd typically chant at the midnight hour of the dance's end, "Let's go grab some food!" And we often would, like that avocado bacon cheeseburger 'n' fries of 1400 calories I consumed last Saturday night).
Unsurprisingly, then, the first step to fixing a problem is understanding the problem. Beyond simply having me admit that there's more to me than meets the non-naked eye, so to speak, my trainer has insisted that I keep a detailed log of every bite and sip that goes through my lips, 24/7. And boy, let me tell you, I tried to find politically-correct ways to notate the aforementioned burger binge, but alas... nope, couldn't hide it.
Do you know how many calories are in a Krispy Kreme Donut? Or in a Double Double at In 'n' Out? Granted, the eating-out indulgences have been only an occasional thing for me (no, really), but even an occasional extra 1000-1500 calories at the end of the day stacks up, so to speak.
---
So, after about a week of keeping my food log, I've learned a lot.
- Excel isn't the optimum tool for making a food log, but it does the trick ("GEEK!").
- I would die a hungry and sad man if my microwave completely broke.
- Veggies and fruits are not a lately -- or at least frequent -- visitor in my household. Someone needs to invent bananas that don't turn brown in 3 days. I mean, what's up with that? But at least my trash can is getting his (her?) full servings of fruit this way.
- Pasta and bread each have a lot of calories, damn! Spaghetti dinner (with garlic bread and real salad) = one way ticket to Fat Farm.
- The people who determine and specify "serving sizes" should be shot. Two tablespoons of croutons = a serving my ass! (er, sorry, bad combo there).
- I can actually eat a HUGE amount of fresh turkey breast for comparatively few calories. Rock on!
---
No, don't worry. I'm not going to post pics of my belly (though, just so I can be one of those sexy-pathetic before 'n' after stories on posters, I've taken such pics). And I'm not going to bore you with exactly what I've been eating the past few days (hint: less than I'd like).
Instead, I'll just close this entry with a moral or a call to action or a pithy quote as I so often do, er, attempt, er...
dammit. It's no use. Have you ever tried to blog when you're hungry and craving a large steak 'n' prawn super burrito?!
Friday, January 16, 2004
Tea time
My life is a mess. From recently stolen cash to a swollen foot to a sore throat, things are not going my way so far in the New Year.
But instead of letting Calgon(tm) take me away, I'm sipping a cup of Orange Spice tea.
By now we pretty much all know that tea is physiologically healthy for us. Antioxidants, herbs, yadda yadda yadda.
But what's more important for me right now is the spiritual and emotional connection. Tea may not bring me closer to God, per se, but in subtle ways it brings me closer to myself and a bit closer to inner peace.
It's not the tea itself, really, but rather the fact that I'm taking time out of my day to sip rather than gulp, to enjoy something that's not processed or sugar coated or microwaved or vitamin-fortified.
Just soothing, natural warmth. And it brings back fond memories of my year in Germany, where a wonderful family invited me over every Sunday for a leisurely lunch, followed a bit later by an equally-relaxing afternoon spot of Kaffe und Kuchen (not-too-sweet and just-right German cake).
When I'm taking a break with my warm cup, I try not to think about how the world is speeding up, increasingly pushing things and feelings and impulses and demands in Internet time. I try not to consider the sadness of European countries -- for ages the model of work/life balance -- rapidly adopting the no-naps paltry-vacation American work 'ethic'.
No, I do my best to let the tea or coffee linger on my tongue. I take a moment to stand up, walk around, resist the temptation to check my e-mail every 30 seconds, and just pause for a moment to be thankful for the blessings I still have.
Good friends that embrace me when I'm there and miss me when I'm not. Overall health. A loving family that worries about me because they care. A roof over my head with an understanding roommate.
And my cup of tea. Cooler now, it's still soothing.
I hope whatever company I end up at will still respect my tea time. Pausing even briefly for reflection isn't just good for the soul, it undoubtedly is good business, after all.
As Homer Simpson would say: Tea! Is there anything it can't do?
But instead of letting Calgon(tm) take me away, I'm sipping a cup of Orange Spice tea.
By now we pretty much all know that tea is physiologically healthy for us. Antioxidants, herbs, yadda yadda yadda.
But what's more important for me right now is the spiritual and emotional connection. Tea may not bring me closer to God, per se, but in subtle ways it brings me closer to myself and a bit closer to inner peace.
It's not the tea itself, really, but rather the fact that I'm taking time out of my day to sip rather than gulp, to enjoy something that's not processed or sugar coated or microwaved or vitamin-fortified.
Just soothing, natural warmth. And it brings back fond memories of my year in Germany, where a wonderful family invited me over every Sunday for a leisurely lunch, followed a bit later by an equally-relaxing afternoon spot of Kaffe und Kuchen (not-too-sweet and just-right German cake).
When I'm taking a break with my warm cup, I try not to think about how the world is speeding up, increasingly pushing things and feelings and impulses and demands in Internet time. I try not to consider the sadness of European countries -- for ages the model of work/life balance -- rapidly adopting the no-naps paltry-vacation American work 'ethic'.
No, I do my best to let the tea or coffee linger on my tongue. I take a moment to stand up, walk around, resist the temptation to check my e-mail every 30 seconds, and just pause for a moment to be thankful for the blessings I still have.
Good friends that embrace me when I'm there and miss me when I'm not. Overall health. A loving family that worries about me because they care. A roof over my head with an understanding roommate.
And my cup of tea. Cooler now, it's still soothing.
I hope whatever company I end up at will still respect my tea time. Pausing even briefly for reflection isn't just good for the soul, it undoubtedly is good business, after all.
As Homer Simpson would say: Tea! Is there anything it can't do?
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Why Democrats are such losers
Out of the millions of bright and eager Democrats around, this is the best way we can spend out time and advertising budget?!
Don't misunderstand me. I agree that Bush and his cronies are dangerous and -- through their actions and inactions -- have harmed far more people than the Big T has ever harmed in our country.
But apparently, a good half of the country or so has a huge blindspot and/or a warped sense of relative morality.
Bush could be killing little boys and girls in the White House basement and his supporters would either cover up the story or retort that Clinton had S-E-X in the White House, you know!
In other words, we Democrats can highlight Bush's glaring deficiencies until our faces or fingers turn blue, and it's not gonna make a damn bit of difference. Why? Because Bush is so durn likeable, idiotic remarks, asinine policies, obnoxious smirk and all.
Here's a radical idea that seems to have escaped most of our Democratic candidates and those who write ads on their behalf: Death and destruction may sell papers, but people actually do want to hear something positive once in a while. No, really!
So I must ask (admittedly a bit hypocritically after the lead-in on this blog entry): Why are we Democrats so good at being miserable and defiant and pissed off (though justifiably so) and so pathetically lousy at actually mass-articulating a message that's inspiring, uplifting, and positive?
Despite Bush's best efforts, America is a great place and has potential for much more greatness. We have the potential to erase homelessness, to have fabulous schools, to actually take care of our wilderness, and to build a future we can all be proud of.
When will the Democrats wise up and start talking more about creating a positive future instead of ranting about the lousy mess we now find ourselves in?
Ironically (and in stark contrast with sanctimonious twits like Lieberman), I've actually heard The "Angry" Candidate (a.k.a. Howard Dean) speak about how we can move forward and accomplish wonderful goals by working together. But unfortunately all that gets covered is his more controversial comments, including some labeled as gaffes that I don't think are gaffes at all (do YOU really feel safer with some two-bit tyrant in custody halfway around the world?)
---
So apparently, we're now getting the Bushin30seconds "winning" ad shown during the Superbowl. Great. Does anyone actually believe in their heart that this strategy of fearmongering and negativity is going to sway anyone to vote Democratic? "Wow, this ad suggests that Bush has mortgaged our children's future. Well, golly gee, I used to like Bush, but now I don't anymore!"
Then again, I'm one of those obnoxious hyper-rational folks who never understood why people are persuaded by commercials and staged imagery on the whole anyway. But I guess there are enough people who fall for the idea that beer gets you sex, cars are who YOU are, and a guy in a flight suit MUST be decisive and manly.
The problem here is that the anti-Bush ad at issue offers no positive alternatives. There's no contrast between the Bush status quo and the potential for smaller deficits, for instance. Therefore, the message is relegated to the realm of the academic rather than the persuasively emotional. And unless the Democrat marketers wise up and get on some Prozac, any hopes of a Democrat in the White House will be in the realm of Fantasy.
Don't misunderstand me. I agree that Bush and his cronies are dangerous and -- through their actions and inactions -- have harmed far more people than the Big T has ever harmed in our country.
But apparently, a good half of the country or so has a huge blindspot and/or a warped sense of relative morality.
Bush could be killing little boys and girls in the White House basement and his supporters would either cover up the story or retort that Clinton had S-E-X in the White House, you know!
In other words, we Democrats can highlight Bush's glaring deficiencies until our faces or fingers turn blue, and it's not gonna make a damn bit of difference. Why? Because Bush is so durn likeable, idiotic remarks, asinine policies, obnoxious smirk and all.
Here's a radical idea that seems to have escaped most of our Democratic candidates and those who write ads on their behalf: Death and destruction may sell papers, but people actually do want to hear something positive once in a while. No, really!
So I must ask (admittedly a bit hypocritically after the lead-in on this blog entry): Why are we Democrats so good at being miserable and defiant and pissed off (though justifiably so) and so pathetically lousy at actually mass-articulating a message that's inspiring, uplifting, and positive?
Despite Bush's best efforts, America is a great place and has potential for much more greatness. We have the potential to erase homelessness, to have fabulous schools, to actually take care of our wilderness, and to build a future we can all be proud of.
When will the Democrats wise up and start talking more about creating a positive future instead of ranting about the lousy mess we now find ourselves in?
Ironically (and in stark contrast with sanctimonious twits like Lieberman), I've actually heard The "Angry" Candidate (a.k.a. Howard Dean) speak about how we can move forward and accomplish wonderful goals by working together. But unfortunately all that gets covered is his more controversial comments, including some labeled as gaffes that I don't think are gaffes at all (do YOU really feel safer with some two-bit tyrant in custody halfway around the world?)
---
So apparently, we're now getting the Bushin30seconds "winning" ad shown during the Superbowl. Great. Does anyone actually believe in their heart that this strategy of fearmongering and negativity is going to sway anyone to vote Democratic? "Wow, this ad suggests that Bush has mortgaged our children's future. Well, golly gee, I used to like Bush, but now I don't anymore!"
Then again, I'm one of those obnoxious hyper-rational folks who never understood why people are persuaded by commercials and staged imagery on the whole anyway. But I guess there are enough people who fall for the idea that beer gets you sex, cars are who YOU are, and a guy in a flight suit MUST be decisive and manly.
The problem here is that the anti-Bush ad at issue offers no positive alternatives. There's no contrast between the Bush status quo and the potential for smaller deficits, for instance. Therefore, the message is relegated to the realm of the academic rather than the persuasively emotional. And unless the Democrat marketers wise up and get on some Prozac, any hopes of a Democrat in the White House will be in the realm of Fantasy.
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
Questioning desires and assumptions about music
Yes, it's been a while since I've posted, and no, I won't apologize. I've been busy... not (just) picking my nose, but picking things to write about.
Additionally, dear reader, I've been spending much of the last few weeks delving even deeper into online music services, evaluating my own music habits and interests, and planning a rather major undertaking of a site about online music services. Yes, you heard it here first ;-).
Much of this has come about during the seemingly mundane process of ripping my 350+ CDs to digital files on my computer. Allow me to explain...
My vast CD collection, probably like many of yours, has been sitting in the corner of my room, collecting dust and -- were it to speak -- would probably moan, "Adam, why hast thou forsaken me?" Indeed, until recently, I don't think I had listened to one of my CDs in literally years, what with the proliferation of song availability via legal and :cough: questionable online music services.
Upon ripping my CDs, I realized that I had well over 5,000 tracks, just waiting to be heard... some for the first time ever. I boggled my mind with the geeky calculation that, yes, I could listen to an album's-worth every day, and it'd still take me more than a year to go through my existing collection.
"What am I doing paying for two different online services," I asked myself, "when I haven't even listened to a fraction of the music I already own?" The fact that I now had every single one of my songs, originally on CD, now available for instant-listening on my PC intensified this soul-searching and budget-questioning.
"Psst!" whispered the ConsumptionDevil, perched playfully on my left shoulder, "It's just $14 or so a month for the two services, ya cheapskate. Isn't that a small price to pay for SUCH a FABULOUS collection of music at your fingertips? Do you really want to be stuck with those musty old relics from the 80's? And besides, you pay more for one lousy night out at the movies!"
"But it's not just about the money," I argued, probably prompting my roommate to wonder why I was mumbling to myself yet again, "It's a matter of time. Why should I spend my limited free time browsing Napster and MusicMatch, searching for tunes, making my own custom radio stations, and so on... when I can just click a few buttons and be listening to fine music I already have?"
---
Ah ha! I thought. Now I have him, that seemingly sly devil of consumerist greed. Always wanting more, always wanting the latest. Well, I showed him! I'm taking my life back and...
"Not so fast, smarty!" he retorted, dismissing my arguments with a cynical glance, "If you have hopes of holding yourself out as an expert in the Digital Music arena, don't you need to actually experience and test what you write about? Your credibility and future employment is at stake. And besides, from a pure enjoyment standpoint, aren't you always just itching to hear what everyone's talking about? That new record, that promising artist, the new musical you've read critical raves about... your old CDs tie you to the past, whereas the new music services allow you to explore the present and the future. Don't be a luddite, Adam, for goodness sake!"
{sigh} He had me. But I'm an exceptional case (or, as my parents would say, patting my head, "special"). What about the rest of the world?
---
To the normal music enthusiast, the Napsters and iTunes and all may prove initially tempting, especially as the KaZaAs of the world become increasingly risky and inconvenient. But will there come a point where these folks, too, stop and ask themselves... what *AM* I doing with 10,000 music files on my hard drive? Sure, my shiny new iPod can now hold all 10K of 'em, but so what?
People will eventually question, I think, not whether they need to regularly acquire and own track after track, but whether the attendant hassles are really worth it. Storing, organizing, and -- this is the scary part -- backing up or moving to a new computer -- gigs upon gigs of music... is this really any fun? With CDs, you simply boxed 'em up and took them with you. Barring scratches or theft, there wasn't much of a worry. Your CDs would work everywhere, never expire, and always be correctly labeled.
In contrast, your iTunes files won't work on most Windows programs and they won't work on any portable player except an iPod. Your Napster files will work on most (but not all) Windows programs, but won't be playable on a Mac or on an iPod. And unless you authorize additional computers (and, if needed, de-authorize previously-used computers), you won't be able to play ANY of your online-music-service acquired files on your friend's laptop or your new computer at work.
---
When I ask my friends about music, they almost unanimously scoff at server-based solutions (such as streaming), and insist that they want "a personal copy" of any music they like. I wonder if they will always think this way. For me, at least, the thought of having someone else (whether it's Napster, Microsoft, Apple, or another party) store ALL my music and allow me to listen to it anywhere remotely (with my choice of software, however) is increasingly tempting, especially as broadband connections become more commonplace.
Will consumers eventually opt for convenience over ownership? Or is ownership, in fact, synonymous with overall convenience? And more philosophically, will people soon realize that what they wish for may be more than they want to handle? When "I want every song by the Beatles and ABBA and Linkin Park and... and... and...!" dovetails with free or cheap availability of music, particularly in high-bitrate-encoding, translating into a few hundred gigabytes of personal storage requirements... will people still be so keen on 'having it all'? Or will the clutter finally catch up to them?
I honestly can't say.
Then again, knowing the increasingly insatiable consumer demands to own more, newer, better... those musty CDs may indeed prove to be no match for innovation and the celestial downloadable jukebox.
---
What are your thoughts? And in particular, if money were no object, how would you have your music?
Additionally, dear reader, I've been spending much of the last few weeks delving even deeper into online music services, evaluating my own music habits and interests, and planning a rather major undertaking of a site about online music services. Yes, you heard it here first ;-).
Much of this has come about during the seemingly mundane process of ripping my 350+ CDs to digital files on my computer. Allow me to explain...
My vast CD collection, probably like many of yours, has been sitting in the corner of my room, collecting dust and -- were it to speak -- would probably moan, "Adam, why hast thou forsaken me?" Indeed, until recently, I don't think I had listened to one of my CDs in literally years, what with the proliferation of song availability via legal and :cough: questionable online music services.
Upon ripping my CDs, I realized that I had well over 5,000 tracks, just waiting to be heard... some for the first time ever. I boggled my mind with the geeky calculation that, yes, I could listen to an album's-worth every day, and it'd still take me more than a year to go through my existing collection.
"What am I doing paying for two different online services," I asked myself, "when I haven't even listened to a fraction of the music I already own?" The fact that I now had every single one of my songs, originally on CD, now available for instant-listening on my PC intensified this soul-searching and budget-questioning.
"Psst!" whispered the ConsumptionDevil, perched playfully on my left shoulder, "It's just $14 or so a month for the two services, ya cheapskate. Isn't that a small price to pay for SUCH a FABULOUS collection of music at your fingertips? Do you really want to be stuck with those musty old relics from the 80's? And besides, you pay more for one lousy night out at the movies!"
"But it's not just about the money," I argued, probably prompting my roommate to wonder why I was mumbling to myself yet again, "It's a matter of time. Why should I spend my limited free time browsing Napster and MusicMatch, searching for tunes, making my own custom radio stations, and so on... when I can just click a few buttons and be listening to fine music I already have?"
---
Ah ha! I thought. Now I have him, that seemingly sly devil of consumerist greed. Always wanting more, always wanting the latest. Well, I showed him! I'm taking my life back and...
"Not so fast, smarty!" he retorted, dismissing my arguments with a cynical glance, "If you have hopes of holding yourself out as an expert in the Digital Music arena, don't you need to actually experience and test what you write about? Your credibility and future employment is at stake. And besides, from a pure enjoyment standpoint, aren't you always just itching to hear what everyone's talking about? That new record, that promising artist, the new musical you've read critical raves about... your old CDs tie you to the past, whereas the new music services allow you to explore the present and the future. Don't be a luddite, Adam, for goodness sake!"
{sigh} He had me. But I'm an exceptional case (or, as my parents would say, patting my head, "special"). What about the rest of the world?
---
To the normal music enthusiast, the Napsters and iTunes and all may prove initially tempting, especially as the KaZaAs of the world become increasingly risky and inconvenient. But will there come a point where these folks, too, stop and ask themselves... what *AM* I doing with 10,000 music files on my hard drive? Sure, my shiny new iPod can now hold all 10K of 'em, but so what?
People will eventually question, I think, not whether they need to regularly acquire and own track after track, but whether the attendant hassles are really worth it. Storing, organizing, and -- this is the scary part -- backing up or moving to a new computer -- gigs upon gigs of music... is this really any fun? With CDs, you simply boxed 'em up and took them with you. Barring scratches or theft, there wasn't much of a worry. Your CDs would work everywhere, never expire, and always be correctly labeled.
In contrast, your iTunes files won't work on most Windows programs and they won't work on any portable player except an iPod. Your Napster files will work on most (but not all) Windows programs, but won't be playable on a Mac or on an iPod. And unless you authorize additional computers (and, if needed, de-authorize previously-used computers), you won't be able to play ANY of your online-music-service acquired files on your friend's laptop or your new computer at work.
---
When I ask my friends about music, they almost unanimously scoff at server-based solutions (such as streaming), and insist that they want "a personal copy" of any music they like. I wonder if they will always think this way. For me, at least, the thought of having someone else (whether it's Napster, Microsoft, Apple, or another party) store ALL my music and allow me to listen to it anywhere remotely (with my choice of software, however) is increasingly tempting, especially as broadband connections become more commonplace.
Will consumers eventually opt for convenience over ownership? Or is ownership, in fact, synonymous with overall convenience? And more philosophically, will people soon realize that what they wish for may be more than they want to handle? When "I want every song by the Beatles and ABBA and Linkin Park and... and... and...!" dovetails with free or cheap availability of music, particularly in high-bitrate-encoding, translating into a few hundred gigabytes of personal storage requirements... will people still be so keen on 'having it all'? Or will the clutter finally catch up to them?
I honestly can't say.
Then again, knowing the increasingly insatiable consumer demands to own more, newer, better... those musty CDs may indeed prove to be no match for innovation and the celestial downloadable jukebox.
---
What are your thoughts? And in particular, if money were no object, how would you have your music?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)