For the most part, cookies do not bother me. Perhaps they should as they can track my movements and can be used across websites. Still, targeted marketing just does not bug me. Perhaps it is because the cookies currently on my computer do not seem to be doing a very good job. They seem to think that I am a Spanish speaking new mother interested in scuba diving, extensive cosplay, and console gaming. I am not. I do occasionally delete my cookies, but not because I am afraid of what or who might be tracking my internet use.
Friday, February 17, 2012
I wrote a virus. I called it the Elvis virus and it forced your computer to go to a DOS screen and display "ELVIS IS DEAD" over and over again while ignoring all keyboard commands. I never distributed the virus, but I did test it out on a non-networked computer. It worked beautifully. I had to wipe the hard drive as I had programmed it to erase all previous system backups. I then deleted the virus, so I could eliminate any chance of accidental distribution. So why did I go to all the trouble to create a virus, test it, but not distribute it? I simply wanted to see if I could. That was 10 years ago.
I was never into the hacker culture, but yes, ! <4|\| |234|> 1337 (I can read leet , well most dialects of it). I do somewhat understand the lure of hacking and virus making. The testing to see just what you can do, pitting your skills against a formidable opponent like a government website. I simply did not like the possible consequences, not only for me but for other unrelated people. If your virus gets to a doctor's computer, it could potentially wipe out important information about a patient. If it gets onto a government computer like the ones that the Social Security Adminstration uses, you could disrupt the services that many elderly and disabled people desperately need. Hacking a website for profit is a jackass thing to do. Stealing people's credit cards off a server is just as bad as breaking into their homes. Plus there is the whole "you could go to jail" part.
I believe there are also different levels of trolling. I personally think it is okay to engage in harmless "just for lulz" trolling. Things that might make people shake their heads, but not anything that is truly hurtful or mean. I also think the target of the trolling makes a huge difference. If you are on Omegle and you get some one who starts the conversation with, "asl?" it is completely appropriate to respond, "No, but I speak Porteguese" as if he was asking if you can use American Sign Language.
This week I read an article about Google+. It was written in June of last year and describes the then new social network, Google+. During that time, it was in beta, and only available by invitation. I managed to get one of the invitations and joined. A few of my friends joined and we would occasionally post something. That was months ago.
One of Google+'s advantages was supposed to be the ability to limit what you share to specific groups of people. That was supposed to be the reason people would switch to it from Facebook. So you would not do things like this . You would be able to post something that only your friends could see and your coworker would never know that you posted anything at all. Just exactly like you could with groups on Facebook. So the question becomes, why leave a social network when you are comfortable and all of your friends are for a new network with less of the people with whom you connect?
Most people on Google+ never left Facebook and/or Twitter. They simply added it to their social networks. And after a few days or weeks, many of them stopped updating. Why? Because they already connected with the same people on Facebook and Twitter. I personally have not posted anything on Google+ since December 26, 2011. I had not even logged back into it until today. By not logging in for two and a half months, had I really missed anything? No. All of the posts that I found from various people in my circles were "paralel posts," posts that people have automatically go to Facebook and Google+, Twitter and Google+, or even Google+, Facebook, and Twitter. I find Google+ to simply be redundant.
When I was young and the world was still flat, you had to go to an actual store and look for greeting cards. Most stores had half an aisle to two aisles of cards from which to choose; a fair selection of birthday cards, a handful of seasonally appropriate cards, a dozen or so anniversary cards, a scattering of get well cards, one or two thank you cards, and one encouragement card showing a (probably long dead) cat clinging to a tree telling you to "hang in there, baby!" There was very little choice available to the consumer. This was before the age of the prosumer.
Now you can buy customized greeting cards here , here , here, or a dozen other places. You can also buy software to make your own such as this, this, or these. There are even free versions such as this one or this one . You can even make your own musical greeting card as shown in this video.
Prosumers can completely control the content and form of greeting cards now. They can choose to send a paper card through the mail, without ever touching the card through websites like this one. They can print out a card from their own computer using card stock. They can even choose to forgo paper and send e-greetings. Sites like Evite allows them to send invitations electronically and receive RSVPs electronically. Even with all these choices and the content control they offer, the card aisle is not going away. In fact, I have seen it grow bigger as the greeting companies expand their lines to include things like offbeat humor and less "mainstream" holidays such as Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, and Bastille Day. It's also a heck of a lot easier to stop at the store and grab a card when you realize that you forgot to pick one up for your third cousin's sixth birthday today.
