I checked on my Blogger Dashboard twice today. First time, I noticed that my last blog post was devoured by Blogger's latest technical snafu. "Oh well," thought I, "it was just one of my typical rants against Republicans or foreigners. What's the loss?" Second time, I noticed the blog post was restored, but with a weird glitch. Two hexadecimal whatzits prefixed each of the two topic-labels assigned to the post, thus creating two weird new topics on the right-hand side of my blog. Another post written the same day or the day before was afflicted by the same bug.
Here's my policy. Deletion, okay. Mutation, okay in a player-character in Dungeon Crawl, but in my blog, Not Acceptable. I edited the categories and all is well now. I bet those programmers over at Google are about ready for some Zzz's right now. I know when I supported systems, a goof like that would have meant an all-nighter or two or three or four. Can't say I emerged unscathed over a period of ten years. Complicated systems that rely on other people's code sometimes do have a tendency to do unexpected things. No one is more understanding about such matters than another programmer. Of course, I have a recent backup of my blog and its template, so I'm not too concerned about a total wipe-out.
Showing posts with label blogging. Show all posts
Showing posts with label blogging. Show all posts
Friday, May 13, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Huffington Post
I removed my link to The Huffington Post after reading that AOL is going to acquire HP for $315 million cash. AOL is bad news.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Telemarketers
Telemarketers are lonely. Why else would they call, day after day, to leave a harsh automated message on one's answering machine? Out of compassion, I have decided to alleviate their loneliness by offering up their email addresses for anyone who is interested in being a pen-pal. Perhaps automated bots on the Internet can communicate with those who run automated bots on the telephone.
~*~ The Lonely Hearts List ~*~
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Remember: True Love Waits
~*~ The Lonely Hearts List ~*~
Remember: True Love Waits
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Blessed Reticence
I say that reticence is blessed, because it will save me time and energy. I am not and never have been reticent by nature. I'm bubbly like champagne when in my element. I am cultivating reticence. It is best to be cautious when encountering strangers, either online or in the real world. Proceed with caution.
I contacted people associated with several different web sites recently in hopes there might be opportunities for cross-pollination of ideas. I regretted doing so. It was a waste of my time. It is usually a mistake to attempt to contact anyone on the Internet that one does not already know. The most probable response is tepid to ice-cold, if any response is offered at all. Common courtesy has gone out of style. Trolls, spammers, viruses and con artists have poisoned the online environment. People are unwilling or unable to conceive of a possible scenario where, instead of a mere annoyance, a new voice may represent a potential friend. There is an epidemic of impatience with other human beings.
In many cases, I sent email to a webmaster only to receive no reply at all. This is the most common scenario of all. I don't know whether my email gets lost in a spam folder, the webmaster simply doesn't check his email, or the webmaster's email address has changed, and he neglected to update it on his web site. In one case, I established contact with a webmaster whose site was static, with no updates in two or three years. He gave me terse, one-line responses to my messages. Many of these web sites are on the ropes, financially or otherwise, and their content will be lost forever in the near future. Since the webmasters are incapable of communicating with other webmasters, their fate is sealed, and no one will be able to help them.
On several web sites, I attempted to locate an email address for the webmaster, only to find that the page with the email address was blank. The webmaster had simply deleted his email address without removing the link to the email page. In other cases, an online forum was offered, but the forum software reported an error, and the forum never loaded. In one case, on someone's blog, I attempted to leave a comment, but found that I had to register in order to do so. I registered, and the software told me an email had been sent to me, which proved to be the case. The only problem was that the email was entirely blank, without any link or instructions, and my registration was invalid. It is obvious to me, based upon these experiences, that many webmasters are avoiding the public due to unpleasant experiences with spam, trolls, or other annoyances. Rather than arrive at an elegant solution for the problems, they simply remove themselves entirely from contact with the outside world.
On my blog, at least, it is possible for people to leave comments. At one time, I used to allow anonymous comments as well, but I stopped doing that because of spam and a flurry of insults from an anonymous troll. So, perhaps I am headed in the same direction as the others. The spammers are accomplishing rather dark ends that they themselves probably never considered in their selfish quest for pennies. Such is often the case with capitalists who never for a moment think of anyone but themselves, in the process polluting our world, destroying the economy through incompetence and negligence and creating new wars.
I don't think we have a civil society on the Internet, but rather atomization of selfish individuals who dwell in isolated fortresses, only peering over the ramparts on occasion to throw derision upon the other fortress-dwellers.
Based upon my thoughts above, I've decided to reinstall my email address in the right-hand column, in order to fight against the prevailing trend towards inaccessibility and remoteness.
I contacted people associated with several different web sites recently in hopes there might be opportunities for cross-pollination of ideas. I regretted doing so. It was a waste of my time. It is usually a mistake to attempt to contact anyone on the Internet that one does not already know. The most probable response is tepid to ice-cold, if any response is offered at all. Common courtesy has gone out of style. Trolls, spammers, viruses and con artists have poisoned the online environment. People are unwilling or unable to conceive of a possible scenario where, instead of a mere annoyance, a new voice may represent a potential friend. There is an epidemic of impatience with other human beings.
In many cases, I sent email to a webmaster only to receive no reply at all. This is the most common scenario of all. I don't know whether my email gets lost in a spam folder, the webmaster simply doesn't check his email, or the webmaster's email address has changed, and he neglected to update it on his web site. In one case, I established contact with a webmaster whose site was static, with no updates in two or three years. He gave me terse, one-line responses to my messages. Many of these web sites are on the ropes, financially or otherwise, and their content will be lost forever in the near future. Since the webmasters are incapable of communicating with other webmasters, their fate is sealed, and no one will be able to help them.
On several web sites, I attempted to locate an email address for the webmaster, only to find that the page with the email address was blank. The webmaster had simply deleted his email address without removing the link to the email page. In other cases, an online forum was offered, but the forum software reported an error, and the forum never loaded. In one case, on someone's blog, I attempted to leave a comment, but found that I had to register in order to do so. I registered, and the software told me an email had been sent to me, which proved to be the case. The only problem was that the email was entirely blank, without any link or instructions, and my registration was invalid. It is obvious to me, based upon these experiences, that many webmasters are avoiding the public due to unpleasant experiences with spam, trolls, or other annoyances. Rather than arrive at an elegant solution for the problems, they simply remove themselves entirely from contact with the outside world.
On my blog, at least, it is possible for people to leave comments. At one time, I used to allow anonymous comments as well, but I stopped doing that because of spam and a flurry of insults from an anonymous troll. So, perhaps I am headed in the same direction as the others. The spammers are accomplishing rather dark ends that they themselves probably never considered in their selfish quest for pennies. Such is often the case with capitalists who never for a moment think of anyone but themselves, in the process polluting our world, destroying the economy through incompetence and negligence and creating new wars.
I don't think we have a civil society on the Internet, but rather atomization of selfish individuals who dwell in isolated fortresses, only peering over the ramparts on occasion to throw derision upon the other fortress-dwellers.
Based upon my thoughts above, I've decided to reinstall my email address in the right-hand column, in order to fight against the prevailing trend towards inaccessibility and remoteness.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Why I Disabled Anonymous Comments
I disabled anonymous comments on the blog because of an ignoramus that abused the privilege. He posted stupid insults in response to three of my blog posts that were picked at random.
To "An Exchange of Secrets," he wrote, "fudge packer". I don't know what bearing that has on my story. Maybe he didn't read it.
To "The Difficult Assignment," he wrote, "shoulda killed the bitch, faggot," suggesting that violence is his preferred solution to conflicts. Some people imagine they are the only ones in the world with a gun and the ability to use it. They find out, too late, that they are not. Violence is easy. Anyone can be violent. Refraining from violence is difficult. Perhaps he is in prison now, serving time for a pointless and stupid violent crime.
To "Meth or Math," he wrote, "some people can handle their dimethylalphaphenethylamine, you fucking fudge-packer faggot bitch." Not counting him, apparently. I am glad I had enough common sense to avoid hard drugs of addiction such as meth and crack cocaine.
He last posted on 5/31/2010 at 5:59 PM NAEST. Perhaps he is dead now of a drug overdose or facing life imprisonment for murder. It is of no concern to me. If he is still alive, and not comatose in the hospital from a gunshot wound or a drug overdose, perhaps he should read more of my posts and open his mind to learning, instead of hating. It would be a step in the right direction, away from the grave, where he seems headed.
To "An Exchange of Secrets," he wrote, "fudge packer". I don't know what bearing that has on my story. Maybe he didn't read it.
To "The Difficult Assignment," he wrote, "shoulda killed the bitch, faggot," suggesting that violence is his preferred solution to conflicts. Some people imagine they are the only ones in the world with a gun and the ability to use it. They find out, too late, that they are not. Violence is easy. Anyone can be violent. Refraining from violence is difficult. Perhaps he is in prison now, serving time for a pointless and stupid violent crime.
To "Meth or Math," he wrote, "some people can handle their dimethylalphaphenethylamine, you fucking fudge-packer faggot bitch." Not counting him, apparently. I am glad I had enough common sense to avoid hard drugs of addiction such as meth and crack cocaine.
He last posted on 5/31/2010 at 5:59 PM NAEST. Perhaps he is dead now of a drug overdose or facing life imprisonment for murder. It is of no concern to me. If he is still alive, and not comatose in the hospital from a gunshot wound or a drug overdose, perhaps he should read more of my posts and open his mind to learning, instead of hating. It would be a step in the right direction, away from the grave, where he seems headed.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Spam-Free Since May
My blog has been spam-free since the end of May. My secret is not dumb luck or even my obscurity, though it is true this is a rather obscure blog, receiving twenty hits per day, half of which are robots. (I'm amused by webmasters that brag about their number of hits, unaware that many are robots rather than human beings.) I am not prepared to believe that hits from Russia, Estonia, China, Japan, or Brazil represent human beings.
I have modified the default behavior of Blogger in order to deceive and ensnare spambots. Spammers continue in their attempts to post on my blog, but such attempts fail. Their posts disappear into cyberspace without my being aware of them, while the IP addresses are captured and exposed. My efforts have bagged over sixty different IP addresses so far.
The only comments I ever have to moderate are the ones from human beings, and I do appreciate the vast majority of them. Since disabling the "Anonymous Comment" feature, there have been no more idiots.
Anthony Cea over at Forum Poster's Union suggested that two percent of spammers might be able to defeat my anti-spam defense. That may be so. However, I have not observed any breach so far. I think that spammers don't bother trying to defeat unusual defenses. They move on to easier and more common varieties of prey. Penetrating the defense of this blog would be like invading Sealand. What would be the point?
I have modified the default behavior of Blogger in order to deceive and ensnare spambots. Spammers continue in their attempts to post on my blog, but such attempts fail. Their posts disappear into cyberspace without my being aware of them, while the IP addresses are captured and exposed. My efforts have bagged over sixty different IP addresses so far.
The only comments I ever have to moderate are the ones from human beings, and I do appreciate the vast majority of them. Since disabling the "Anonymous Comment" feature, there have been no more idiots.
Anthony Cea over at Forum Poster's Union suggested that two percent of spammers might be able to defeat my anti-spam defense. That may be so. However, I have not observed any breach so far. I think that spammers don't bother trying to defeat unusual defenses. They move on to easier and more common varieties of prey. Penetrating the defense of this blog would be like invading Sealand. What would be the point?
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Comments on Mainstream Media Sites
The Comments section on mainstream media web sites, such as the New York Daily News and many other newspapers, television and radio stations, express base sentiments. Armchair generals advocate lynching, beating, and torture for every conceivable misdemeanor. The reaction to any irritant, domestic or foreign, involves wielding the club. Men not far advanced above chimpanzees express racism, homophobia, sexism, and every other variety of hatred. They would be ashamed of their own words if called upon to defend their thoughts in front of a live audience. The Comments section gives the incorrect impression that idiots are the majority, and that nobody bothers thinking matters through in any depth. Maybe it is a mistake to have a Comments section where the lowest common denominator inserts its less-than-two-cents. Note that I am only talking about MSM sites, not my own, where comments have been pretty good as a rule, with two exceptions, a spambot fluent in Chinese, and a drunkard who remains nameless for the moment*.
Nowadays it is possible to jot down an errant thought without delay. The lack of delay discourages reflection. Brute impulses may be transmitted straight from the amygdala. When writing, I try to let the prefrontal cortex remain in charge. The animal-nature betrays a writer and will never win any support from individuals that operate at a high level of thinking**.
If the writing process required a quill pen, parchment, postage, and a messenger-boy, the correspondent might trouble himself to compose a message containing ideas rather than threats or deprecation. Only those that felt their words had weight would trouble themselves to sit down and write a letter in longhand with a quill pen.
I am old enough to remember a time when a personal letter, whether from a friend, acquaintance, or stranger, was of great importance, enough to make me stop everything that I was doing and devote my whole attention to the message, written in longhand of course. That the letter would be of a certain minimal quality was almost certain.
Writing should be superior to the spoken word. When it is not, I know that I am dealing with a lazy writer who cannot be troubled to proofread. If the writer will not proofread his message, then I will not read it. Proofreading catches grammatical, structural, and organizational errors. It is like the error correction protocol used in many of our technological devices. Without proofreading, errors of every variety are likely to betray the writer, making him look like a fool. I do not know anyone who can pump out sterling prose without revising their text many times. If there is such an exceptional individual, then he might make a good President or Prime Minister, assuming he is not really just a plagiarist.
My goal on this blog is to write nothing that I would regret later. If I write something that I later regret, then I delete it. I have done so at least a hundred times. Sometimes when I go to bed, one of my posts troubles me. I sense that something is amiss, even if I am not sure exactly what it is. When I wake up in the morning, I review the message. If the message has only a minor fault, such as a grammatical error, I edit. If the message appears beyond redemption, I delete. Sometimes I am too quick to delete. I miss some of my old posts that are gone forever. Partial remains of these victims to my internal critic can be found via a Google Search, but they are not to be found on this blog. Even so, I think quality control is a good idea for any blog. There is no predicting which post a reader may begin with. Each post may be my one and only opportunity to make an impression.
Nowadays it is possible to jot down an errant thought without delay. The lack of delay discourages reflection. Brute impulses may be transmitted straight from the amygdala. When writing, I try to let the prefrontal cortex remain in charge. The animal-nature betrays a writer and will never win any support from individuals that operate at a high level of thinking**.
If the writing process required a quill pen, parchment, postage, and a messenger-boy, the correspondent might trouble himself to compose a message containing ideas rather than threats or deprecation. Only those that felt their words had weight would trouble themselves to sit down and write a letter in longhand with a quill pen.
I am old enough to remember a time when a personal letter, whether from a friend, acquaintance, or stranger, was of great importance, enough to make me stop everything that I was doing and devote my whole attention to the message, written in longhand of course. That the letter would be of a certain minimal quality was almost certain.
Writing should be superior to the spoken word. When it is not, I know that I am dealing with a lazy writer who cannot be troubled to proofread. If the writer will not proofread his message, then I will not read it. Proofreading catches grammatical, structural, and organizational errors. It is like the error correction protocol used in many of our technological devices. Without proofreading, errors of every variety are likely to betray the writer, making him look like a fool. I do not know anyone who can pump out sterling prose without revising their text many times. If there is such an exceptional individual, then he might make a good President or Prime Minister, assuming he is not really just a plagiarist.
My goal on this blog is to write nothing that I would regret later. If I write something that I later regret, then I delete it. I have done so at least a hundred times. Sometimes when I go to bed, one of my posts troubles me. I sense that something is amiss, even if I am not sure exactly what it is. When I wake up in the morning, I review the message. If the message has only a minor fault, such as a grammatical error, I edit. If the message appears beyond redemption, I delete. Sometimes I am too quick to delete. I miss some of my old posts that are gone forever. Partial remains of these victims to my internal critic can be found via a Google Search, but they are not to be found on this blog. Even so, I think quality control is a good idea for any blog. There is no predicting which post a reader may begin with. Each post may be my one and only opportunity to make an impression.
* On Memorial Day, I received three comments in one day to three ancient posts of mine. None of the comments addressed the substance of the posts, which seemed to be picked at random. The comments were nothing but insults. My first thought was of a spambot, but instead it was a hatebot, an insulting drunkard who left anonymous comments, afraid to reveal his identity. Nothing that he wrote is worth repeating. I removed the Anonymous Comment feature due to this example of its abuse. It makes me smile to imagine all of this advanced computer technology put to the service of conveying the screeching of baboons.
[**] A fascist will respond by saying he does not care what the liberals think, because he is only preaching to others like himself, lazy armchair generals addicted to anger, who watch FOX News 24/7 and believe everything they are told.
[**] A fascist will respond by saying he does not care what the liberals think, because he is only preaching to others like himself, lazy armchair generals addicted to anger, who watch FOX News 24/7 and believe everything they are told.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Any Takers?
When I found out today how much my blog is worth, I thought, "Dayum! time to put 'er up for sale!"
Any takers?
The estimate may be just a tad on the optimistic side.
My site is worth$3,176.4Your website value?
Any takers?
The estimate may be just a tad on the optimistic side.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
A Peace Sign
...works better for me than an asterisk.My blog's template is based upon 565, which I liked better than all the other freebies offered by Blogger. However, the number "565" was strewn all over the template. To everyone except the designer, "565" has no meaning, symbolic or otherwise, except as the number that arrives after 564 and before 566. Also, in the upper left corner, there was an equally random asterisk.
I spent my Sunday afternoon eliminating those annoyances and redesigning the template to be in accord with my design values. "565" is history. The asterisk was replaced by a peace sign. I also reorganized the topics with the goal of simplicity and conciseness. Some topics have been folded into broader topics. "Computers," for instance, encompasses internet browsers, windows, and troubleshooting computer hardware. I also reworded the blog description, which used to be a mouthful: "Everything you ever wanted to know about life, technology and the world around you (but were afraid to ask)," which was borrowed from the 1969 book, "Everything you ever wanted to know about Sex (but were afraid to ask)." "Everything..." was meant as a joke. My new description, "A little bit of this, that and the other," is more concise and better reflects the blog's nature, although it could fit most blogs. For this blog, a description is unnecessary, because the topic list serves as an adequate description all by itself. I may get rid of the description altogether next time I do housecleaning.
Modifying templates is not for the faint of heart. I feel comfortable with HTML, but was unacquainted with Blogger's template language. XML? I have no idea. Trial-and-error was my teacher. Once I got immersed, things became easier, particularly with the assistance of Color Cop and ACDSee. I've tested the blog on the Chrome and Firefox browser, but don't have IE, so I won't bother with that for the time being.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Why Blog?
The blog receives few comments, which sometimes concerns me. Does my writing do me any credit? Am I making any sense at all? Such doubts may occur to other bloggers as well. But if a blog only receives ten hits per day, with most of these being click-and-go, then one can't expect much feedback.
Why should someone bother reading an unpublished amateur, when there are best-selling luminaries online, offering their thoughts in many cases for free? I don't know. If the quest for readership were all that mattered, then no one would bother blogging. There are heavy hitters servicing just about every conceivable niche. When I visit Border's, I'm overwhelmed by the many different books and writers that I've never even heard of before. I haven't enough remaining time in my life to read all the books, even if the inventory never changed. This is the golden age of literature. Books are plentiful, cheap, well-constructed, proofread until nearly perfect, and can even be ordered online without ever leaving one's home.
I view my blog as a public journal for recording my thoughts, ideas and opinions. It is safer than a word processor, because if my computer ever dies, the articles remain secure in the cloud. In my day, I have seen many a hard drive crash and be irrecoverable. Besides, my thoughts may be useful or at least amusing to others. Who am I to assume otherwise? In the case of a certain cult classic game, there are obvious reasons for players to read igor's little insights. I can't imagine playing that game without my trusty regen.bat, which protects against sudden death.
The blog is more for me than anyone else. I like reading my own material, because I tend to agree with myself. No big surprise there. My blog is my favorite blog of all. I'd rather write on it or read it than watch my favorite show. Since February, the blog has really cut into my television watching. I have a massive backlog of shows I have been meaning to watch. This is the golden age of television, as well, although not television news.
Writing is both therapeutic and an effective exercise of the mental faculties, which slide toward decay in a world of canned entertainment. Whenever someone feels troubled over an issue, they should write about it. Reviewing one's own writing can be instructive, like looking into a mirror. I am aware of at least some of my faults, if not all. I also see some good qualities, which is why I continue.
However, when writing, exercise caution concerning negative events or emotions. For instance, many political writers indulge their spleen to excess. Their hatred is tribal in nature and does not seem grounded in reality. For instance, Limbaugh and Coulter are forever going on about liberals. They do not know what they are talking about. Theirs is non-productive writing. Perhaps they make a great deal of money through their writing. Money is not as important as ethics. I would not trade places with either of them for all the money in the world.
Be careful with the digging up of old bones, such as conflicts, infatuations, or traumas of the past. Sometimes it is best to leave old bones undisturbed in their grave, particularly if one has moved on. By thinking about a subject, one gives it energy. Monsters can rise from their slumber to haunt us once again. Deny them your power. Rather than brood, focus instead upon the present.
However, some of us are reflective by nature and seem to have no choice but to analyze events in the past in the hopes of arriving at a better understanding. There may be instances when one chooses to travel into subterranean caverns in search of self-knowledge. It is a dangerous journey, with fell creatures lurking in the shadows. Here there be dragons. But such an expedition can prove cathartic. Old memories can serve as an instruction, maybe even a useful one, for myself and others. I will only be around for so long. After I am gone from this earth, the only record I leave behind may be stories. They needed to be birthed. I carried them to term and placed them in a nest somewhere out in the world. Then I returned to the sea.
By writing a story, I transcend it. The beast is dissected, with every part labeled. It is pinned down, framed and hung upon a wall. Thereafter, its power over me diminishes. If this is the attitude that a writer takes, then excavations of old bones can be constructive rather than destructive.
Avoid alcohol, the bane of all writers, because in the long run it inspires melancholy thoughts. For an inhibited, reserved writer, booze may seem like just the thing. A friend of mind refers to it as mental lubrication. I have not found it to be helpful at all. As for marijuana, it relaxes the analytical faculties, reducing the quality of prose. Reading, in particular, becomes far more challenging. I doubt marijuana would be of much use to a writer, unless he suffers from writer's block. If therapy is the main goal, rather than prose quality, then marijuana may be of benefit.
For my part, I prefer sobriety when writing or reading. The only drug that I have found useful for intellectual work of any kind is caffeine in the form of coffee, chocolate, or tea. Some writers swear by nicotine, which is supposed to improve concentration, although I have never observed any such benefit. However, if nicotine seems beneficial, then I would suggest absorbing it through a patch, rather than smoking, or else using a vaporizer on unprocessed, cured tobacco. The tobacco in most cigarettes has harmful additives, and combustion renders tobacco more carcinogenic. The goal would be to maximize the benefit and minimize the harm. However, you could easily become addicted to nicotine, which is one of the most addictive substances known to man. This is the main reason that I avoid it.
Sharing one's thoughts with others is not a bad idea, because there is a slim possibility that your output may be of benefit to others. However, I must add with reluctance a warning. On today's Internet, everything is traceable, archives are kept forever, lawsuits are becoming more common, and government oversight of private power is insufficient. A private individual of modest means should consider the many benefits of remaining as anonymous as possible. Of course, there is no such thing as total anonymity, but there is such a thing as "good enough" anonymity. Even at the cost of clarity, it may be prudent to refrain from mentioning keywords such as names and places, at least until such things are rendered irrelevant by the inexorable march of time. There are exceptions, such as a wealthy writer with a lawyer on retainer. It is all right to be the knight in shining armor, if you can afford the suit and horse. Otherwise, remain in the forest among the trees, dressed in green.
Why should someone bother reading an unpublished amateur, when there are best-selling luminaries online, offering their thoughts in many cases for free? I don't know. If the quest for readership were all that mattered, then no one would bother blogging. There are heavy hitters servicing just about every conceivable niche. When I visit Border's, I'm overwhelmed by the many different books and writers that I've never even heard of before. I haven't enough remaining time in my life to read all the books, even if the inventory never changed. This is the golden age of literature. Books are plentiful, cheap, well-constructed, proofread until nearly perfect, and can even be ordered online without ever leaving one's home.
I view my blog as a public journal for recording my thoughts, ideas and opinions. It is safer than a word processor, because if my computer ever dies, the articles remain secure in the cloud. In my day, I have seen many a hard drive crash and be irrecoverable. Besides, my thoughts may be useful or at least amusing to others. Who am I to assume otherwise? In the case of a certain cult classic game, there are obvious reasons for players to read igor's little insights. I can't imagine playing that game without my trusty regen.bat, which protects against sudden death.
The blog is more for me than anyone else. I like reading my own material, because I tend to agree with myself. No big surprise there. My blog is my favorite blog of all. I'd rather write on it or read it than watch my favorite show. Since February, the blog has really cut into my television watching. I have a massive backlog of shows I have been meaning to watch. This is the golden age of television, as well, although not television news.
Writing is both therapeutic and an effective exercise of the mental faculties, which slide toward decay in a world of canned entertainment. Whenever someone feels troubled over an issue, they should write about it. Reviewing one's own writing can be instructive, like looking into a mirror. I am aware of at least some of my faults, if not all. I also see some good qualities, which is why I continue.
However, when writing, exercise caution concerning negative events or emotions. For instance, many political writers indulge their spleen to excess. Their hatred is tribal in nature and does not seem grounded in reality. For instance, Limbaugh and Coulter are forever going on about liberals. They do not know what they are talking about. Theirs is non-productive writing. Perhaps they make a great deal of money through their writing. Money is not as important as ethics. I would not trade places with either of them for all the money in the world.
Be careful with the digging up of old bones, such as conflicts, infatuations, or traumas of the past. Sometimes it is best to leave old bones undisturbed in their grave, particularly if one has moved on. By thinking about a subject, one gives it energy. Monsters can rise from their slumber to haunt us once again. Deny them your power. Rather than brood, focus instead upon the present.
However, some of us are reflective by nature and seem to have no choice but to analyze events in the past in the hopes of arriving at a better understanding. There may be instances when one chooses to travel into subterranean caverns in search of self-knowledge. It is a dangerous journey, with fell creatures lurking in the shadows. Here there be dragons. But such an expedition can prove cathartic. Old memories can serve as an instruction, maybe even a useful one, for myself and others. I will only be around for so long. After I am gone from this earth, the only record I leave behind may be stories. They needed to be birthed. I carried them to term and placed them in a nest somewhere out in the world. Then I returned to the sea.
By writing a story, I transcend it. The beast is dissected, with every part labeled. It is pinned down, framed and hung upon a wall. Thereafter, its power over me diminishes. If this is the attitude that a writer takes, then excavations of old bones can be constructive rather than destructive.
Avoid alcohol, the bane of all writers, because in the long run it inspires melancholy thoughts. For an inhibited, reserved writer, booze may seem like just the thing. A friend of mind refers to it as mental lubrication. I have not found it to be helpful at all. As for marijuana, it relaxes the analytical faculties, reducing the quality of prose. Reading, in particular, becomes far more challenging. I doubt marijuana would be of much use to a writer, unless he suffers from writer's block. If therapy is the main goal, rather than prose quality, then marijuana may be of benefit.
For my part, I prefer sobriety when writing or reading. The only drug that I have found useful for intellectual work of any kind is caffeine in the form of coffee, chocolate, or tea. Some writers swear by nicotine, which is supposed to improve concentration, although I have never observed any such benefit. However, if nicotine seems beneficial, then I would suggest absorbing it through a patch, rather than smoking, or else using a vaporizer on unprocessed, cured tobacco. The tobacco in most cigarettes has harmful additives, and combustion renders tobacco more carcinogenic. The goal would be to maximize the benefit and minimize the harm. However, you could easily become addicted to nicotine, which is one of the most addictive substances known to man. This is the main reason that I avoid it.
Sharing one's thoughts with others is not a bad idea, because there is a slim possibility that your output may be of benefit to others. However, I must add with reluctance a warning. On today's Internet, everything is traceable, archives are kept forever, lawsuits are becoming more common, and government oversight of private power is insufficient. A private individual of modest means should consider the many benefits of remaining as anonymous as possible. Of course, there is no such thing as total anonymity, but there is such a thing as "good enough" anonymity. Even at the cost of clarity, it may be prudent to refrain from mentioning keywords such as names and places, at least until such things are rendered irrelevant by the inexorable march of time. There are exceptions, such as a wealthy writer with a lawyer on retainer. It is all right to be the knight in shining armor, if you can afford the suit and horse. Otherwise, remain in the forest among the trees, dressed in green.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Fighting Blogger
In some ways I like Blogger, which is why I've stayed. However, the Blogger engine does not permit much freedom in customizing the design and fails to support subcategories. What I want are the following, in order of importance:
1. Subcategories extending to a minimum of two levels, although more would be better. Ten levels of subcategories would be optimal. A blog without categories is like a book without a table of contents.
2. A more robust Comment feature, one that does not drop comments by accident without any explanation.
3. Useful gadgets for the blog. Most of the add-ons are annoying gimmicky substitutes for content that the writer should instead provide.
3. The ability to customize the header in any way, shape, or form.
4. The ability to customize the appearance of the rest of the blog.
5. Better templates.
6. The ability to delete an article while editing, before publishing. Right now, Blogger stores everything, whether the article is empty or not.
I am considering moving over to Wordpress. The cost in terms of broken links would not be all that high. The only downside as I see it is lack of advertising support, but I can afford five bucks for sure.
If I do make the move, never fear. My last message here will link to the new site.
I sure am glad I mowed the blog last week. There won't be as much moving to do. I anticipate the move taking a couple of hours. But first, I need to examine Wordpress and make sure the grass really is greener on the other side of the fence. Reports of security vulnerabilities in Wordpress are quite alarming. Perhaps that explains why somebody out there is hitting my router with port-scans. Yes, I do have a Firewall. D'oh!
As for LiveJournal, that is now owned by a Russian company. Sorry, Russian readers, but I do not have a high overall opinion of Russian democracy, right at the moment. The fact that they laid off a bunch of programmers in San Francisco and moved the jobs over to Russia does not sit well with me, either. It is just another thorn in the side of our ailing country. San Francisco is one of my favorite cities in the world. Don't mess with SF.
As for Myspace, it is owned by Murdoch, and no more need be said on that score. Windows Live Spaces may be worth considering. I'm not that much of a Microsoft h8r; after all, I use Windows XP. They probably have the security angle covered. I'll just bet they don't bother with categories (#1 on the list above) or for that matter any other innovation. A Microsoft solution aims for a solid and sound imitation of the other players in the market without getting ahead of them. Reports of browser incompatibility are not too surprising. Microsoft still expects everyone to use IE. More troublesome for me is that Microsoft censors the word "democracy" in China.
1. Subcategories extending to a minimum of two levels, although more would be better. Ten levels of subcategories would be optimal. A blog without categories is like a book without a table of contents.
2. A more robust Comment feature, one that does not drop comments by accident without any explanation.
3. Useful gadgets for the blog. Most of the add-ons are annoying gimmicky substitutes for content that the writer should instead provide.
3. The ability to customize the header in any way, shape, or form.
4. The ability to customize the appearance of the rest of the blog.
5. Better templates.
6. The ability to delete an article while editing, before publishing. Right now, Blogger stores everything, whether the article is empty or not.
I am considering moving over to Wordpress. The cost in terms of broken links would not be all that high. The only downside as I see it is lack of advertising support, but I can afford five bucks for sure.
If I do make the move, never fear. My last message here will link to the new site.
I sure am glad I mowed the blog last week. There won't be as much moving to do. I anticipate the move taking a couple of hours. But first, I need to examine Wordpress and make sure the grass really is greener on the other side of the fence. Reports of security vulnerabilities in Wordpress are quite alarming. Perhaps that explains why somebody out there is hitting my router with port-scans. Yes, I do have a Firewall. D'oh!
As for LiveJournal, that is now owned by a Russian company. Sorry, Russian readers, but I do not have a high overall opinion of Russian democracy, right at the moment. The fact that they laid off a bunch of programmers in San Francisco and moved the jobs over to Russia does not sit well with me, either. It is just another thorn in the side of our ailing country. San Francisco is one of my favorite cities in the world. Don't mess with SF.
As for Myspace, it is owned by Murdoch, and no more need be said on that score. Windows Live Spaces may be worth considering. I'm not that much of a Microsoft h8r; after all, I use Windows XP. They probably have the security angle covered. I'll just bet they don't bother with categories (#1 on the list above) or for that matter any other innovation. A Microsoft solution aims for a solid and sound imitation of the other players in the market without getting ahead of them. Reports of browser incompatibility are not too surprising. Microsoft still expects everyone to use IE. More troublesome for me is that Microsoft censors the word "democracy" in China.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
My Readers
My readers hail from the following locations:
Most are in the English-speaking world--no surprise there. The top cities supplying the most visitors are, in order: Penza, Russia and Atlanta, Georgia. These cities account for the largest orange dots on the map. After the top two, we have New York, London, Oslo, Brisbane, Sydney, Austin, San Diego, Olympia, Seattle, Melbourne, Houston, Athens, "not set" (unknown location, due to privacy settings), Los Angeles, San Francisco, Paris and several other cities.
This data comes from google-analytics, a utility that many webmasters use to evaluate their sites. The average time spent on the site is the juiciest detail. If a reader spends less than a minute, then the site repelled him for some reason (poor design or content, most likely). The more time a reader spends, the better. I expected the highest average time to be from the United States, but was completely mistaken:
Countries where English is not the native language show higher average times. Those visitors require more time to interpret what for them is probably a second language, learned in school. In the same way, I would require more time to read a French site.
I'm not sure how to interpret all of this data, but I do like the idea of the blog being read in faraway places that I've never visited. I wonder what the reader in Bolivia thinks about the blog, for instance. Once, I wrote an article about the recent coup in Honduras. Someone out there replied, but their text was written in Chinese characters, and I could not publish it because I didn't know what it meant. I rejected the comment, but the person left a similar comment two more times, until I changed the settings on the blog to disallow anonymous comments.
The data itself does not tell me much, other than this site is good enough to capture attention for an average of 1.86 pages and 2.09 minutes per visit, which isn't too bad, considering most people click and then leave before a minute gets clocked. Servers may visit my site on a daily basis to scan for keywords for marketing purposes or to inspect the AdSense code. In some cases, they grab the text, create a summary and then put a summary of my content on a web page, along with summaries of content from other blogs, organized by key words. I think this technique is intended to generate ad revenue.
All of the data collected by google-analytics is technical in nature, and so of less interest to a writer than to a webmaster, who frets over whether his site plays well with all the browsers and screen resolutions. More interesting questions would be, what do the readers believe, and do they agree or disagree on this or that article? These are unknowns, although the data gives little hints.
What does screen resolution mean? In my experience, those with very high screen resolution are either involved with technology, graphic design or games; well-to-do financially, or both. High status has a strong association with high screen resolution.
All of these resolutions are about the same, in what I call the lower to middle-class spectrum of screen resolution. Only when I extend the list do I notice some unusual resolutions, such as 2560 x 1600, which indicates a power user, someone with an unusually expensive monitor. Today as I write this, such monitors cost eleven hundred dollars and up at NewEgg.com, although in the future they will become cheaper. Such a person probably has a fast internet connection, as well, such as a T1.
The smaller resolutions, such as 800 x 600 and 800 x 480, do not indicate poverty. Someone could be logging in from a mobile device. Also, I have noticed that many people, no matter how much money they have, just don't bother upgrading their computer. It's perceived to be a hassle. They use their computer until it breaks, and then buy a new one. Whatever screen resolution is on their new system, they will live with until the new computer also breaks. They just don't care about screen resolution.
Most are in the English-speaking world--no surprise there. The top cities supplying the most visitors are, in order: Penza, Russia and Atlanta, Georgia. These cities account for the largest orange dots on the map. After the top two, we have New York, London, Oslo, Brisbane, Sydney, Austin, San Diego, Olympia, Seattle, Melbourne, Houston, Athens, "not set" (unknown location, due to privacy settings), Los Angeles, San Francisco, Paris and several other cities.
This data comes from google-analytics, a utility that many webmasters use to evaluate their sites. The average time spent on the site is the juiciest detail. If a reader spends less than a minute, then the site repelled him for some reason (poor design or content, most likely). The more time a reader spends, the better. I expected the highest average time to be from the United States, but was completely mistaken:
Countries where English is not the native language show higher average times. Those visitors require more time to interpret what for them is probably a second language, learned in school. In the same way, I would require more time to read a French site.
I'm not sure how to interpret all of this data, but I do like the idea of the blog being read in faraway places that I've never visited. I wonder what the reader in Bolivia thinks about the blog, for instance. Once, I wrote an article about the recent coup in Honduras. Someone out there replied, but their text was written in Chinese characters, and I could not publish it because I didn't know what it meant. I rejected the comment, but the person left a similar comment two more times, until I changed the settings on the blog to disallow anonymous comments.
The data itself does not tell me much, other than this site is good enough to capture attention for an average of 1.86 pages and 2.09 minutes per visit, which isn't too bad, considering most people click and then leave before a minute gets clocked. Servers may visit my site on a daily basis to scan for keywords for marketing purposes or to inspect the AdSense code. In some cases, they grab the text, create a summary and then put a summary of my content on a web page, along with summaries of content from other blogs, organized by key words. I think this technique is intended to generate ad revenue.
All of the data collected by google-analytics is technical in nature, and so of less interest to a writer than to a webmaster, who frets over whether his site plays well with all the browsers and screen resolutions. More interesting questions would be, what do the readers believe, and do they agree or disagree on this or that article? These are unknowns, although the data gives little hints.
What does screen resolution mean? In my experience, those with very high screen resolution are either involved with technology, graphic design or games; well-to-do financially, or both. High status has a strong association with high screen resolution.
All of these resolutions are about the same, in what I call the lower to middle-class spectrum of screen resolution. Only when I extend the list do I notice some unusual resolutions, such as 2560 x 1600, which indicates a power user, someone with an unusually expensive monitor. Today as I write this, such monitors cost eleven hundred dollars and up at NewEgg.com, although in the future they will become cheaper. Such a person probably has a fast internet connection, as well, such as a T1.
The smaller resolutions, such as 800 x 600 and 800 x 480, do not indicate poverty. Someone could be logging in from a mobile device. Also, I have noticed that many people, no matter how much money they have, just don't bother upgrading their computer. It's perceived to be a hassle. They use their computer until it breaks, and then buy a new one. Whatever screen resolution is on their new system, they will live with until the new computer also breaks. They just don't care about screen resolution.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Who are the Prohibitionists?
If you are scared of cannabis, then you still have plenty of company. Mostly old timers, as it turns out:
This chart was found on a recent posting on the NORML web site.
I wonder how much those who are 65+ really know about cannabis. Do they base their opinion upon government propaganda? The government is concerned with political expediency and is not a reliable source on this particular subject.
Cannabis has been a taboo topic for a long time. Some people feared being called a pothead if they dared to speak out in favor of legalization. But the times, they are a-changing. I see the discussion of cannabis moving from the sidelines into the mainstream, where it belongs. People who never use it nevertheless recognize that cannabis poses less danger to society than the Powers-That-Be would have us believe. Prohibition of cannabis has even less scientific basis than the Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s. Cannabis is safer. Later generations will look back upon the Prohibition years as collective hysteria.
The disparity in opinion between liberals and conservatives is not surprising. Modern-day conservatives seem to relish the idea of inflicting severe punishment for other people's peccadillos. Some favor making prison a nasty and brutish trauma as well. This draconian policy is not without costs. Conservatives have been in power for so long in the United States that today our prison system has over two million people. Such a huge amount of incarceration has consequences for the economy and the well-being of poor families. The cost is a long-term drain upon the national resources. If Americans were presented with a bill detailing the cost of Prohibition over the last century, the total would surely eclipse the budget deficit. Meanwhile, Holland gets by just fine with a liberal policy toward cannabis.
This chart was found on a recent posting on the NORML web site.
I wonder how much those who are 65+ really know about cannabis. Do they base their opinion upon government propaganda? The government is concerned with political expediency and is not a reliable source on this particular subject.
Cannabis has been a taboo topic for a long time. Some people feared being called a pothead if they dared to speak out in favor of legalization. But the times, they are a-changing. I see the discussion of cannabis moving from the sidelines into the mainstream, where it belongs. People who never use it nevertheless recognize that cannabis poses less danger to society than the Powers-That-Be would have us believe. Prohibition of cannabis has even less scientific basis than the Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s. Cannabis is safer. Later generations will look back upon the Prohibition years as collective hysteria.
The disparity in opinion between liberals and conservatives is not surprising. Modern-day conservatives seem to relish the idea of inflicting severe punishment for other people's peccadillos. Some favor making prison a nasty and brutish trauma as well. This draconian policy is not without costs. Conservatives have been in power for so long in the United States that today our prison system has over two million people. Such a huge amount of incarceration has consequences for the economy and the well-being of poor families. The cost is a long-term drain upon the national resources. If Americans were presented with a bill detailing the cost of Prohibition over the last century, the total would surely eclipse the budget deficit. Meanwhile, Holland gets by just fine with a liberal policy toward cannabis.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
Cannabis is one of the most misunderstood plants on Earth, due to years of government propaganda which consisted of half-truths, stereotypes and outright fabrications. One of the many reasons why people do not trust the government has to do with the government's draconian cannabis policy. The amount of taxpayer money being wasted on arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating marijuana users is ridiculous.
For those who seek release from the cares of this world, cannabis is far less harmful than the usual alternatives. It is less toxic to the human body than tobacco, aspirin, or coffee. It reduces both anxiety and aggression, and cannot cause physical addiction. In addition, cannabis has beneficial properties for the millions suffering from a variety of medical conditions. A substance found in cannabis has even shown promise in treating cancer. More research is needed in this area, but our government has held back scientific research for decades. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws maintains a rational and truthful blog in sharp contrast to the misinformation found on government web sites. NORML should be the starting point for anyone interested in researching this topic.
For those who seek release from the cares of this world, cannabis is far less harmful than the usual alternatives. It is less toxic to the human body than tobacco, aspirin, or coffee. It reduces both anxiety and aggression, and cannot cause physical addiction. In addition, cannabis has beneficial properties for the millions suffering from a variety of medical conditions. A substance found in cannabis has even shown promise in treating cancer. More research is needed in this area, but our government has held back scientific research for decades. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws maintains a rational and truthful blog in sharp contrast to the misinformation found on government web sites. NORML should be the starting point for anyone interested in researching this topic.
Monday, September 28, 2009
I Mowed the Blog
The blog had gotten a bit overgrown, so I took the lawnmower to it the other day. About half the politics category has been weed-wacked. Other categories have been decimated as well, although not as much.
I have an uneasy relationship with politics. On the one hand, I have followed world news since the time I was small, cultivating opinions on just about every issue under the sun. Some people believe they should not be opinionated, but should be open-minded about everything. This is a mistake. Opinions are not bad, because they serve as a guidepost in life, helping to navigate around new issues as they come along. If you don't know what you like, you will waste too much time in testing.
On the other hand, I don't like the pettiness, bickering and tribalism inherent in politics. Too often, I suspect that the majority of liberals and conservatives are the same sort of people, only they belong to different tribes. Sometimes, it is mindless allegiance to the tribe that causes people to adopt certain positions. Politics is a slippery slope, and if one does not exercise caution, one could devolve into an ogress like Ann Coulter.
I have an uneasy relationship with politics. On the one hand, I have followed world news since the time I was small, cultivating opinions on just about every issue under the sun. Some people believe they should not be opinionated, but should be open-minded about everything. This is a mistake. Opinions are not bad, because they serve as a guidepost in life, helping to navigate around new issues as they come along. If you don't know what you like, you will waste too much time in testing.
On the other hand, I don't like the pettiness, bickering and tribalism inherent in politics. Too often, I suspect that the majority of liberals and conservatives are the same sort of people, only they belong to different tribes. Sometimes, it is mindless allegiance to the tribe that causes people to adopt certain positions. Politics is a slippery slope, and if one does not exercise caution, one could devolve into an ogress like Ann Coulter.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The Internet and Personal Names
Today I saw a sign in someone's yard in opposition to a local politician, displaying the man's name affixed to a .dot com. Above the url was one word: Recall.
The only reason his opponents were able to grab that url was that he was an older man, not a big wheeler and dealer, and serving in a small community. He neglected to consider the ramifications of failing to reserve an url on the Internet. Now his legal name is being employed on the Internet to malign him. This, I feel, is unfair, because it places a new burden upon those running for public office, or anyone, indeed, who achieves a certain level of notoriety.
If you want to oppose a person, you should be allowed to reserve the word "sucks" appended to their full legal name; but you should not be allowed to sit on the actual legal name. I base this reasoning on the expectation of users searching for a specific web site. If you enter "Joe Smith" in the Google search engine, you are probably a fan. If you enter "Joe Smith sucks," you're probably not. "Sucks" began as a vulgar connotation, but nowadays is used with less prejudice. You can find numerous critical web sites with "sucks" appended to the url. In the event that there are multiple individuals with the same name, the url should be allotted on a first-come, first-serve basis--but it should always go to the person who has the name registered upon their birth certificate.
In lieu of a law protecting individuals, I believe that political players should voluntarily abide by this straight-forward ethical position. Dirty tricks may succeed from time to time, but they also give insight into the nature of the perpetrator, as in the case of Cheney.
The only reason his opponents were able to grab that url was that he was an older man, not a big wheeler and dealer, and serving in a small community. He neglected to consider the ramifications of failing to reserve an url on the Internet. Now his legal name is being employed on the Internet to malign him. This, I feel, is unfair, because it places a new burden upon those running for public office, or anyone, indeed, who achieves a certain level of notoriety.
If you want to oppose a person, you should be allowed to reserve the word "sucks" appended to their full legal name; but you should not be allowed to sit on the actual legal name. I base this reasoning on the expectation of users searching for a specific web site. If you enter "Joe Smith" in the Google search engine, you are probably a fan. If you enter "Joe Smith sucks," you're probably not. "Sucks" began as a vulgar connotation, but nowadays is used with less prejudice. You can find numerous critical web sites with "sucks" appended to the url. In the event that there are multiple individuals with the same name, the url should be allotted on a first-come, first-serve basis--but it should always go to the person who has the name registered upon their birth certificate.
In lieu of a law protecting individuals, I believe that political players should voluntarily abide by this straight-forward ethical position. Dirty tricks may succeed from time to time, but they also give insight into the nature of the perpetrator, as in the case of Cheney.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Traffic Cut in Half
I've noticed a precipitous drop in hits originating from Google searches. I have several theories to explain the loss. One is that I've been talking too much trash about corporations and Republicans, and they got to me somehow, but that sounds a bit reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's talk of a vast right-wing conspiracy. They just are not that organized, you know? The other theory is that a recent entry of mine contained a naughty word triggering Google to flag my site as adult-oriented. The word was penis. (See, I'm doing it again. Some people never learn, I'm afraid.) Google may have flagged me as a lyric pirate due to an adaptation made of a popular song; or the same entry might have gotten dinged for poor grammar and punctuation. The final theory is that I talked smack about Google Chrome. Maybe all of these theories are correct or maybe none at all. Maybe there's just a seasonal slump in Internet traffic. Who knows? Who even cares?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Calling All Rodents
When I talk about Iraq, the U.S. economy, computers, Windows, any topic at all under the Sun, I don't get too many comments. I don't expect comments, either, although these topics tend to be highly controversial.
If I write about "Kodak," however, I receive an immediate comment the next day or soon thereafter, and not a casual one either but a passionate and informed comment. Just a coincidence? I think not.
Corporations hire people like you to read blogs like mine and post comments. I call these people "rodents." From google, they sniff for certain key words, such as "Charter", "AT&T", "Kodak", or "Kodak Easyshare." Then they click on the corresponding links, read the blog entries, and respond if any negative reviews are encountered. When positive reviews are encountered, they probably ignore.
I don't mind the rodents, because they let me know that the blog is functioning as expected. But other bloggers need to be aware of this phenomena. Another type of key word that will cause hits to arrive at your blog is the name of a prominent celebrity or politician such as Newt Gingrich. I assume these bigwigs employ "reputation consultants," i.e. rodents.
An interesting experiment would be to post a blog entry packed with brand names. The gravity of such a post might prove inescapable, attracting all the rodents of the Internet like a black hole.
KENMORE WAL-MART SANYO SONY K-MART KROGER'S PUBLIX INGLES BP SHELL EXXON CHEVRON HOME DEPOT LOWES NEWT GINGRICH KODAK CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS AT&T PACIFIC BELL NORTHWESTERN BELL AIG AIU GATEWAY DELL EBAY E-BAY PAYPAL COSTCO CONSUMER REPORTS AMOCO WALMART KROGERS SHARP PANASONIC OKI OKIDATA HEWLETT PACKARD CANON NIKON OLYMPUS BARNES AND NOBLES AMAZON...
Whew! Ran out of steam there at the end. Let's see what sort of mischief this arouses.
If you are a rodent and arrived at my blog because of the black hole posted above, drop a comment and let me know why you decided to become a rodent. What went wrong? Dropped out of college, joined a cult, what?
If I write about "Kodak," however, I receive an immediate comment the next day or soon thereafter, and not a casual one either but a passionate and informed comment. Just a coincidence? I think not.
Corporations hire people like you to read blogs like mine and post comments. I call these people "rodents." From google, they sniff for certain key words, such as "Charter", "AT&T", "Kodak", or "Kodak Easyshare." Then they click on the corresponding links, read the blog entries, and respond if any negative reviews are encountered. When positive reviews are encountered, they probably ignore.
I don't mind the rodents, because they let me know that the blog is functioning as expected. But other bloggers need to be aware of this phenomena. Another type of key word that will cause hits to arrive at your blog is the name of a prominent celebrity or politician such as Newt Gingrich. I assume these bigwigs employ "reputation consultants," i.e. rodents.
An interesting experiment would be to post a blog entry packed with brand names. The gravity of such a post might prove inescapable, attracting all the rodents of the Internet like a black hole.
KENMORE WAL-MART SANYO SONY K-MART KROGER'S PUBLIX INGLES BP SHELL EXXON CHEVRON HOME DEPOT LOWES NEWT GINGRICH KODAK CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS AT&T PACIFIC BELL NORTHWESTERN BELL AIG AIU GATEWAY DELL EBAY E-BAY PAYPAL COSTCO CONSUMER REPORTS AMOCO WALMART KROGERS SHARP PANASONIC OKI OKIDATA HEWLETT PACKARD CANON NIKON OLYMPUS BARNES AND NOBLES AMAZON...
Whew! Ran out of steam there at the end. Let's see what sort of mischief this arouses.
If you are a rodent and arrived at my blog because of the black hole posted above, drop a comment and let me know why you decided to become a rodent. What went wrong? Dropped out of college, joined a cult, what?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
A Spambot Attacks My Blog
Recently, a comment was left on my blog. Now I won't lie, I don't get many comments at the moment, although in the future I hope things perk up a bit.
This comment, however, struck me as funny:
A comment like this is generic, having no relevance whatsoever to my content. Dropping the url is the entire point. Kaylee does not exist and is not a real person. Or maybe she is the daughter, wife or concubine of the programmer that wrote the spambot that dropped this message in my blog.
I rejected this comment, but discovered to my dismay that others in the blogosphere are falling victim to the ploy. Bloggers, awake! Don't be fooled by spambots.
This comment was followed, less than twenty-four minutes later, by another one, this time with a right-wing message, in response to my post concerning the bailouts:
This comment I rejected as well, because it was obvious to me that the writer did not bother reading the content of my post. At most, he probably read the title of my post and nothing more. I suspect that this, too, was the work of a spambot.
The comment uses exclamation marks in an attempt to stir up anger. Something about that seemed familiar--I was reminded of Rush Limbaugh, actually. When I visited the site, all was clear. It was a right-wing shill site, with a slick appearance and plenty of catchy graphics and slogans. What was being protested? Not the bailouts, but rather the Democrats, and in particular Obama and his supporters. The writers were even discussing things like civil war and revolution. Bunch of right-wing loonies. Funny, I don't remember advocating revolution when George W. Bush served two terms and took this country into a war of aggression. But I digress.
I believe the two comments are connected. In other words, the same spambot that made the first comment also made the second one, twenty-four minutes later.
What is newsworthy is that the right wing site employs a spambot to spam left-wing blogs like mine, hoping to lure away my readers. Bloggers that are more naive than I am about technical matters publish these robotic comments and even visit the site.
Today the spambot left another message, confirming that it is indeed a robot and not a human:
Notice the ominous hook, "I will keep visiting this blog very often." That's a threat directed at me, implying that a program of harassment is intended. In other words this comment will be posted every day and potentially a hundred times a day, eating up my time in comment moderation.
After rejecting this comment for the second time, I turned off anonymous commenting. If that doesn't stop the spambot, I may have to employ something along the lines of image verification.
I checked up on the WHOIS of the url being promoted and discovered the following:
The owner of the web site has paid a company, DomainsByProxy, to register the domain for him, so that he need not reveal his own information. Interesting. If the spambot continues to annoy me, I can seek recourse with DomainsByProxy, which serves as the unwitting middleman between the spammer and his victims.
Note that at no time have I divulged the actual domains in this post. Doing so equals promotion. The site owners could care less whether I am damning or praising them. Their search rank increases with every mention, whether in a positive or negative context. I wonder how many bloggers realize this? Every time you criticize a site, you promote it.
So, right-wing sites employ spambots. Should I be surprised? I'm not. I hope that other bloggers are savvy enough to recognize comments like the above for what they are. But from what I've seen, it looks like plenty of bloggers are being duped.
Bloggers are human beings. They want to believe that there are other humans reading their stuff and loving it. The reality is often quite different. Push against the natural inclinations of your heart and don't believe what you want to believe until there is a compelling reason. Once you publish on the web, you become noticed by the machines and the criminals, who are vast in number and constantly seeking ways to use you like a tool. One of their goals is search engine optimization. They have other goals, however, that vary according to which master they serve. The web is crawling with criminals who do not care who you are or what you believe. All they know is that you have a domain and can therefore be useful.
This comment, however, struck me as funny:
I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I
thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except
that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog
very often.
Kaylee
http:// (spam site they are trying to promote with this comment)
A comment like this is generic, having no relevance whatsoever to my content. Dropping the url is the entire point. Kaylee does not exist and is not a real person. Or maybe she is the daughter, wife or concubine of the programmer that wrote the spambot that dropped this message in my blog.
I rejected this comment, but discovered to my dismay that others in the blogosphere are falling victim to the ploy. Bloggers, awake! Don't be fooled by spambots.
This comment was followed, less than twenty-four minutes later, by another one, this time with a right-wing message, in response to my post concerning the bailouts:
you're right! spending is out of control! join us in protesting
excessive government spending!
http:// (site being promoted)
This comment I rejected as well, because it was obvious to me that the writer did not bother reading the content of my post. At most, he probably read the title of my post and nothing more. I suspect that this, too, was the work of a spambot.
The comment uses exclamation marks in an attempt to stir up anger. Something about that seemed familiar--I was reminded of Rush Limbaugh, actually. When I visited the site, all was clear. It was a right-wing shill site, with a slick appearance and plenty of catchy graphics and slogans. What was being protested? Not the bailouts, but rather the Democrats, and in particular Obama and his supporters. The writers were even discussing things like civil war and revolution. Bunch of right-wing loonies. Funny, I don't remember advocating revolution when George W. Bush served two terms and took this country into a war of aggression. But I digress.
I believe the two comments are connected. In other words, the same spambot that made the first comment also made the second one, twenty-four minutes later.
What is newsworthy is that the right wing site employs a spambot to spam left-wing blogs like mine, hoping to lure away my readers. Bloggers that are more naive than I am about technical matters publish these robotic comments and even visit the site.
Today the spambot left another message, confirming that it is indeed a robot and not a human:
I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I
thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except
that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog
very often.
Kaylee
Notice the ominous hook, "I will keep visiting this blog very often." That's a threat directed at me, implying that a program of harassment is intended. In other words this comment will be posted every day and potentially a hundred times a day, eating up my time in comment moderation.
After rejecting this comment for the second time, I turned off anonymous commenting. If that doesn't stop the spambot, I may have to employ something along the lines of image verification.
I checked up on the WHOIS of the url being promoted and discovered the following:
Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
The owner of the web site has paid a company, DomainsByProxy, to register the domain for him, so that he need not reveal his own information. Interesting. If the spambot continues to annoy me, I can seek recourse with DomainsByProxy, which serves as the unwitting middleman between the spammer and his victims.
Note that at no time have I divulged the actual domains in this post. Doing so equals promotion. The site owners could care less whether I am damning or praising them. Their search rank increases with every mention, whether in a positive or negative context. I wonder how many bloggers realize this? Every time you criticize a site, you promote it.
So, right-wing sites employ spambots. Should I be surprised? I'm not. I hope that other bloggers are savvy enough to recognize comments like the above for what they are. But from what I've seen, it looks like plenty of bloggers are being duped.
Bloggers are human beings. They want to believe that there are other humans reading their stuff and loving it. The reality is often quite different. Push against the natural inclinations of your heart and don't believe what you want to believe until there is a compelling reason. Once you publish on the web, you become noticed by the machines and the criminals, who are vast in number and constantly seeking ways to use you like a tool. One of their goals is search engine optimization. They have other goals, however, that vary according to which master they serve. The web is crawling with criminals who do not care who you are or what you believe. All they know is that you have a domain and can therefore be useful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)