internet
Some people just don't get it. The guy who rides your tail in traffic clearly doesn't get it - forcing you into the right hand lane won't help him get past the line of trucks that are forcing you to drive slow. The people who shout at airline gatew agents clearly don't get it - it's not that person's fault that the plane is late, and there is very little they can do. A lot of people just don't get the internet.
The internet officially turned thirty the other day. For thirty years packets have been travelling around the world on the ever expanding infrastructure of the internet. And yet, in all this time, very few real advances have come forth. I don't think that places like Amazon or Buy.com really represent an advance - it's basically distribution under different means; a middleman of a different sort. The same with a lot of online journalism - the production cycles follow their print counterparts very closely. CNN, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and others are all just starting to understand the twenty four hour nature of the internet. Places like Slashdot, Hacker News Network, and the like all fully understand the global accessability of the internet. Further, Slashdot represents one of the truly revolutionary things on the internet: the virtual community.
I realize that the Well has been a virtual community for far longer than Slashdot has even existed. And I would be remiss if I did not mention Mindvox, my particular favorite online community from about 5 years ago. But I find the Well to be less generally accessible than Slashdot and Mindvox no longer seems to exist; thus I find Slashdot to be more of a revolutionary phenomenon. News blurbs are posted on a wide range of subjects, with appropriate links to further reading, and readers are encouraged to engage one another in lively discussion and debate on the subject matter posted. Within minutes of a new story there is likely to be at least half a dozen responses, and by the end of the day the number of responses can easily span into the hundreds. Of course, some people just don't get it here, either - as invariably the very first response always says "First Post!", and the flame wars that can ensue are really the thing of legend - Slashdot readers can be some of the most acerbic and zealous people on the net.
Another real revolution that I see is ICQ. This instant messanger allows people to communicate in near real-time fashion. It's a far more intuitive means for communication for most people, and far more suitable to the bulk of on-line discussion. And if one of my buddies is not online, I can still send him a message which will be stored on the server and sent to him as soon as he logs on. This is far more appropriate for community development than IRC is. IRC is an extremely active engagement - you must log into the server, specify a nickname (that isn't currently in use), and then join a room. ICQ is far more passive - once you've added someone to your contact list, you can send and receive messages with ease. Of course, the down side of this is the ease with which one can receive spam.
Not a week goes by without my mailbox receiving some kind of forwarded spam. And rarely does a week go by without someone sending me something unsavory through ICQ. Email is easy enough - I delete it (I may read it, if I'm so inclined). I'd much rather receiving email spam every day than the countless pounds of crap postal mail that I receive - at least email doesn't waste any natural resources. ICQ spam is a little more annoying. If it's from a friend, I find myself agitated that they sent it to me. If it's from a stranger, I have to go through the process of obtaining their user information so I know if it's someone I know using a new nickname or some such, before I can delete it.
And maybe I'm expecting too much of the newbie users, but I just don't think they get it. How many times do people need to be told that you cannot get a virus through reading an email? Ever since the GOOD TIMES rumor started spreading (how many years ago was that?), I get forwarded message after forwarded message from people detailing how I should not even look at my mailbox if it contains a letter titled GOOD TIMES, or WIN A TRIP TO DISNEY LAND, or something. I understand that a newbie doesn't understand fully the nature of email, and the inner workings of a computer virus. But rather than figure it out (through countless resources on the web, or by asking a technically savvy friend) they blindly propogate the spam by forwarding it on to everyone they know. The same with ICQ - every couple of weeks I get a message (or three) forwarded telling me to forward it to everyone I know. The claim is that Mirabilis is going to stop supplying service unless everyone shows that they use ICQ on a regular basis - and the only way you can do that is to forward the message. Now, even if you don't know much about the way internet client-server technology works, the assumption here is completely false! Look, if Mirabilis can tell that you're sending one message to everyone on your contact list, what makes you think that they can't tell when you send one message to one person? A logical look at the claim shows it for the crap that it is.
But the people who really don't get it are the internet advertisers. Web page commercials are becomming more and more prolific. Bandwidth costs money, and the only way to support a popular site is to get advertising revenue or some sort of sponsorship. I'm not that opposed to advertising in general. But I am opposed to old-school advertisers propogating their old-school mechanisms in the new capacities of the internet. It seems that print media advertisers are trying to make a one to one correlation between an advertisement in a magazine and an advertisement in a web page. They're trying some new things - like rotating ads, and traffic monitoring, so that they can custom tailor the ad served to you based on how many times you've been to that site, or what specific pages you check regularly. But what they don't seem to get is the basic communication mechanisms of the internet. The web advertisements are generally located on a different server. So you connect to your favorite web page, and in turn have to make a connection to another server to get the ad - and since the ads are generally at the top of the page, this slows the entire process of loading your favorite page (web pages are loaded and displayed sequentially, starting at the top and working their way down). If the connection between user and the ad server is slower then the connection between user and their favorite web page, then it looks like their web page is slow. It's a matter of perception.
It's a tricky business. I'd like to say "Put the ad files locally on each web server that you advertise on" in an effort to decrease load times, and make life generally better for the public at large. But this isn't entirely viable for them, as one advertising server hands out hundreds of different ads to hundreds of different web pages. I'd also like to see advertisers embrace new technology in an effort to improve the content of the ads they serve. I am not at all interested in GeoCities advertising, or special deals from some online entrepeneurial start-up. If a web site can custom tailor the advertisements for me, based on the places I go regularly, then I'm all for that. I'd like to get ads for special deals on X10 products or a new game. But that sort of customization is not easy to achieve, and not at all reliable, as it relies heavily on the use of cookies. And since a lot of paranoid people disable cookies in their browsers this sort of functionality doesn't work.
The other big gripe I have is the content of the actual ads. In the effort to embrace all the cool new technology, advertisement banners are invariably animated GIF files. Aside from the fact that I personally loathe animated GIFs, they present an increased load time for the web page they reside on - the GIF sitting at the top of the page is loaded and displayed before the rest of the page. If the GIF is a big file, and the connection to the ad server is slow, this can really delay the loading of the page. And Allah forbid a discreet advertisement sitting at the bottom of the page! No, the ads must be big, flashy eye-catchers and must have ideal screen placement at the top of the page. Or the advertisements occupy the entire left third of the screen, thereby contracting the screen space for the content that the user went there to see, making pages unnecessarily long.
I don't have a problem with advertising in general (or perhaps in theory, at any rate). But current advertising practices leave a good bit to be desired...
communication
I wonder if how we communicate affects what we communicate.
I've been an email junkie for the last six years. When I first discovered email, I used it fairly indiscriminately. I applied very little thought to the content of my messages - instead preferring to whip off a letter as the inspiration hit me. This inevitably led to many misunderstandings, because I was not adequately fleshing out my thoughts before hitting the send button. Over time, though, I began to realize that the sterile nature of electronic communication often leaves the receipient with no frame of reference in terms of the tone of the document. I've engaged in many arguments with people due to someone - sender or receipient - making assumptions. I learned to proof read all of my letters before sending them. I learned to read every thing I write at least twice to assure that I adequately explain myself. I also try to be cognizant of emotionally charged words that could sway the reader's attitude. And of course, I've always been conservative in regards to punctuation (we all know someone who displays their joy through the liberal use of exclamation points).
As more and more people get online, I've noticed a similar learning curve in most people. My mom is the prime example. When she first began sending email, she used it more or less as a telegram service - short, choppy sentences, and rapid-fire sequences of additional messages as a new thought came to her. She's now getting much better at collecting her thoughts and presenting a cohesive message. My friends have exhibited a similar evolution with email usage.
My mom has a very interesting thing to say about me: I am the only person she knows who speaks in the same way that I write an email message. I am conscious of the words I use in conversation, just as in drafting a letter. I am deliberate and exacting with my words whenever possible. I've become so unaware of my vigilance in email that it has begun to affect the ways I communicate in general. I wonder if other people have experienced a similar phenomenon?
Email is so unlike traditional correspondence. Paper letters and postcards have an inherent quality of definition. The historical legacy of correspondence is such that you usually only sent one letter, and you tried your best to get it right the first time. In that letter you would make an attempt to pack as much information as possible. I guess this is mostly because it's quite impractical to send a follow-up letter. But email allows you to conveniently send any number of messages, of any length. Not only does it not incur additional costs, it's far more expeditious to fire off another email. And replies can now be received in minutes or hours as opposed to days or weeks.
This convenience has led to a proliferation of single-line email messages. My friend sends me a message while she's at work that simply says "Hi." While email certainly can accomodate this sort of communication, the latency between messages is a deterrent in a conversation-like engagement. I much prefer to send a message that contains some substance. For the quick messages, I rely on Mirabilis' ICQ. This instant-messanger package allows me near-instantaneous access to anyone else I know who is online with the program. Messages are bounced directly between the users, without a mediating server to slow the process down. And the functionality of the program does not limit us to text - graphics can be exchanged, as well as URLs.
I've been using ICQ for over 3 years. My contact list is fairly large, by my standards. The program has been a tremendous convenience in a great many ways. I communicate with co-workers and clients while I'm working. ICQ allows me to bounce a technical question off a guru without the need for email or telephone, thus increasing the response time (and saving me some face in front of those around me, when I suddenly produce the answer!). I've made dinner plans with friends via ICQ. I've coordinated a cross-country road-trip by sending messages back and forth. The uses for instant messanging are nearly limitless. It's no wonder that AOL and Microsoft are locking horns in regards to this issue.
And I've noticed that even ICQ has changed the way people communicate. I guess it actually started with IRC - Internet Relay Chat - but the same results have bled over to the mainstream using ICQ. People find it awkward or annoying to type common phrases after a short while. When leaving the room for a bit, most folks these days will type AFK, meaning "away from keyboard." Or a quick potty break will be signalled by BRB, "be right back." I have a good friend who always replies OIC, "Oh, I see." On the whole, I don't mind these little conveniences. But more and more, the English language is falling victim to this over-simplification. Too often I'm seeing things like enuf, yur, cuz, and the like. I'm guilty of some phonetic simplification; I'll type wanna for "want to" or mebbe for "maybe", because this represents the sound of the words I'm saying - it gives a small flair of personality in an otherwise sterile conversation. But I don't think I've ever used sum1 or sumfin, or any other bastardization of the language I speak.
In a purely text based conversation, the strength of your presence is dictated purely on the power of your words (unless of course you're in #quake, where your power is determined by how quickly you can flood an IP address on the screen). Without the help of tone of voice, body language, and facial expressions it is extremely hard to embody any sort of personality on the internet. I always kind of assumed that the internet would have a fairly powerful affect on literacy - it has, but unfortunately in a negative sense. People are too lazy to type the extra four letters. Or they simply don't know the proper spelling and prefer to just sound it out with their fingers. I'll forgive the developmentally challenged, the younger people online, and folks in the heat of a dynamic conversation - even my fingers slip on the keys. But I have no forgiveness for most adults sending email, or anyone who publishes content on the world wide web.
No one seems to realize that it's just that - publishing. A public audience gauging you and your thoughts by how they are presented. I cringe when I see typographical errors in high-profile web pages like Slashdot, Blue's News, or Salon. Every document should be proof-read and spell checked. Ask anyone who knows me - I beat myself up when a typo on my pages is pointed out to me.
As with email, I'm hoping there will be a gradual development of online literacy. But some people just don't seem to get the internet, yet...
language
I've always been a people watcher. At most parties I go to, I end up being a wall flower. And with all the travelling I've done, I've had ample opportunity to watch people in airports. One of the most interesting things is watching people communicate. As a male, I've never really been able to interpret (or even recognize) most body langauge. But I am a keen observer of both tone of voice, and the words people use.
A lot of folks seem to overlook the importance of the actual words in any given conversation. Folks get so hung up on tone of voice, or body language, that they miss the point of what is being said. I try very hard to listen to what people say. The words people choose speak volumes as to what they are thinking, whether intentionally or not. See, words have a certain cultural context to them that we often take for granted.
As an example, compare the words murder and kill. Both words can be used more or less interchangeably. But if you say that you know someone who was murdered, the general reaction is much stronger - and more sympathetic - than if you announce that you know someone who'd been killed. Likewise, if you kill someone, you may or may not be morally responsible (depending on your ethical composition, no doubt). But if you murder someone, you are clearly to blame. Some of this can be attributed to the dictionary differences between these example words, but not all of it.
As another example, consider sex (or any of its slang replacements) and making love. Although most folks this day and age will agree that making love is a bit corny, it does convey a certain romance which sex does not. Making love has a cultural history of being a passionate, romantic engagement by two willing partners. But if you say that two people are screwing or doing it, it diminishes some of the passion - it becomes a furtive act, possibly clandestine, and very probably frowned upon. In a similar vein, examine affair and cheating. Again, both words mean the same. But history has made affair an almost forgivable thing - usually due to the romance of the two lovers. But cheating leaves no doubt as to the violation that is going on - at least one person is very clearly breaking an agreement with another person, whether that agreement be explicit or not.
But there is a lot more to language use than merely historical tradition. The power of vocabulary cannot possibly be over-stated. The more words you have to describe a thing, the more things you can describe. A rich vocabulary is the key to a rich world. Without a sufficiently broad vocabulary, one cannot accurately capture and relate the vast nuance of the world. As an example, I am presently in a bad mood. The reason for this mood is extremely complex, so it's a little too simple to say I'm in a bad mood - I'm sullen, or melancholy. These words describe my mood far more aptly then just bad.
As I stated above, I listen to people a lot. I hear a lot of people destroy the English language on a regular basis (and I'm not just talking about people who want to ax you a question, want to know pacifically what you're talking about, or claim that something is funner). If these people had more of a vocabulary, they could express themselves so much more succinctly. Instead, I overhear the word cool about ten thousand times a day. I hear people who cannot use a synonym for go, or okay. I hear people blurt out um every other word.
Language is just one part of communication. I wonder if the ways we communicate these days are affecting our use of language?
communication
I'm an email junkie. I've had no less then two email accounts in the last six years. I reply to almost every single piece of mail as soon as I receive it. I have single-line email conversations with friends at work across town. I write diatribes and confessions to friends in other states.
I'm also addicted to ICQ. My contact list is comprised of about 25 people, most of whom I chat with daily. I discuss technology with co-workers in Cleveland and Indiana. I plan gaming strategies with friends in Maine. I offer technical support to a buddy in St. Louis. I've even chatted with a co-worker while he was in Yokohama, Japan! Rarely does a night go by without me being in instant contact with many people.
I've grown quite accostumed to this instant communication available to me. I find myself frustrated if I'm not able to bounce an idea of a friend while sitting in my cubicle at the office. I grow restless if none of my friends are online to coordinate a quick match of TRIBES. I feel disonnected if I'm unable to check my email for more than a few hours. Yes, I am an instant-gratification junkie.
But how many others are, too? How many people spend hours on the telephone? How many spend hours in front of a television, flipping mindlessly through channels in search of some stimulating program? How many people go to the movies with their families, instead of playing a board game or taking a walk? I think modern culture propogates the "quick fix" as a commodity more than another other.
Our culture today encourages us to waste our lives watching the drama of other people's lives unfold on a small box in front of us. Hell, our culture encourages us to get ever larger boxes to watch said drama unfold, as if this will somehow increase our pleasure. Whether that drama be a soap opera, or a sporting event, or Jerry Springer, we are encouraged to become passive observers because it's the quick fix. If you're bored, it's so easy to find an engaging episode of Springer, or Judge Judy, and laugh at someone else's misery - staged or otherwise.
And when that becomes boring, you're empowered to seek alternate stimulus with nothing more than the pressing of your thumb. The remote-control, the greatest of the "quick fix" solutions, has been a lifesaver to bored people the world over. No longer do people have to labor to the television and turn a knob. I lump into this category, also, the cordless phone (and perhaps even the cellular phone, but that's a whole seperate diatribe). The cordless phone allows us to stay firmly planted in front of our television, remote control in hand, and still be connected to those loved ones who insist on calling during our favorite program.
This culture of quick fixes has become so pervasive that it is tearing apart some of the most fundamental institutions in civilized life. I've seen two marriages fall apart because one or both members of the couple failed to recognize the life-commitment present in their vows. As couples hit a stumbling block in their relationship, popular culture tells them that a fix is just around the corner! Yes, you too can avoid all marital strife and compromise for the low low price of 19.95, thank you very much, pay at the window! How many people recognize what it means to commit yourself for the rest of your life to another human being? This means that when your spouse does some boneheaded thing again and again that you take steps to resolve it. Very very few of the problems present in most marriages are unsolvable. A solution may not be around the corner, but that doesn't mean one should nullify their vows. Of course, I also believe that the things you work hardest for are the ones you value the most; and it's safe to say that judging by our current 50% divorce rate that not many people share that opinion. Or those who do aren't getting married as often.
While driving through Indiana last week, I heard a radio commercial for some place called the Zallman Institute. This place is a plastic surgery clinic, and their radio spot absolutely appalled me. It's one thing for beauty magazines at the check-out counter to declare "Lose Wieght Now! Our 30-day program will have him looking at you like never before!" because this at least involves a modicum of effort, and a 30 day waiting period. But this plasic surgery place sends the message that if you throw enough money at us, we'll have you looking beautiful! How disgusting. And what's more disgusting is that people buy into this quick beauty fix. Lose weight, enhance your breasts, increase your sex appeal become a better person. Absurd.
I know a woman who desperately desires larger breasts. She'll tell anyone who asks how much she wants to increase her chest size. She has no definable reason for this urge, other than it will get her more attention. What I don't understand is that she gets plenty of attention now, because she's a nice looking woman with naturally full breasts (and she's not at all shy about flaunting them, either). She's clearly a victim of this media blitz to create artificial value for artificial beauty. Larger breasts will not make anyone a better person. It won't make the man of your dreams more attracted to you. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the exact opposite of the desired (or promised) effect will come true - you'll suffer from more abuse and leering stares, and attract just the kind of people you don't want. Unless of course you happen to be attracted to selfish, shallow guys who are more interested in looking at your breasts than talking to you about your goals and aspirations.
So many people are focused on the quick fix. I admit that I'm guilty of it, too. I've been single for well over a year now, and lament to my friends how I'd like to find a girlfriend. But I keep hoping one will fall into my lap. Popular culture has conditioned me, too, through movies and television.
The quick fix is, by and large, a complete myth. If it's worth having, it's worth working for, folks.
toilets
I heard a story on National Public Radio this morning about Japan's fascination with high-tech toilets. The toilets, ranging upwards of $4,000, have seat warmers, automatically lower the seat after use by an insensitive male, provide a bidet function, and a whole lot more. The top-of-the-line model has a control panel on the side sporting nineteen knobs, buttons, and dials.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I could never persuade myself to purchase one of these techno-toilets. I'd never use it. I've grown accustomed to the painfully cold porcelain on my backside in the dead of winter. The only high-tech component in my entire bathroom is my Palm III - so I can play MahJongg - and that's not even a permanent fixture!
I realized recently just how much I like the privacy of a bathroom. Regardless of where you are, you can always count on the quiet solitude of someone's bathroom. You can read the funny anecdotes and little prayers embroidered on towels that adorn the walls. You can admire the dried flower arrangements sitting in a pretty vase on the sink. You can relax in the austere pastel environment.
But not a public bathroom! Oh no, the cold functionalism of the modern public restroom epitomizes everything I loathe about society today. In an effort to save every last penny, public restroom construction contains the absolute minimum of personal comforts. Now, I'm speaking from the purely male perspective here; I suspect that females get a marginally better toilet experience.
Guys are forced to stand shoulder to shoulder in a small pool of what may well be water and stare at a blank wall. If we're lucky, there is a small privacy divider between the urinals, although many public restrooms opt not to provide even this modicum of decency. Stalls are seperated from one another by an extremely thin wall. The walls themselves are a good six to twelve inches above the ground, and generally rise no higher than about six feet. Sure, it's nice to be able to glance down and see a pair of feet to indicate an occupied stall. But as a tall guy, I don't like to look at the crowd milling about the sink basins as I stand up.
Nor do I particularly like standing next to a guy as I stare at a blank wall. Invariably, someone will eventually feel the need to make some small quip about the weather, or a sporting event, or some news piece. The last thing I want to do, while I'm staring at a blank wall holding myself, is to discuss much of anything with a complete stranger, who is also holding himself and staring at a blank wall. I also do not like to hear the sounds of people's intestinal distress. When I choose to use a restroom, the last thing I want is to hear some poor sap suffering from diarrhea.
The toilets that I experienced in England were, on the whole, far superior. Stalls were actually seperate rooms, with the dividing wall running all the way from floor to ceiling. The occasional trough was present in place of urinals, but these were generally broad enough to support a few guys standing sufficiently spaced apart. Some such troughs wrapped around corners, allowing guys to turn their backs to one another. When urinals were in place, the privacy divider generally ran from ceiling to floor, providing a little urinal alcove.
Who designs public restrooms? Do they ever use them? Do they enjoy standing in a pool of what may well be water, holding themselves and staring at a blank wall? Do they like hearing the sounds of a man sitting in a small, semi-private cubical suffering from intestinal distress? Do they enjoy washing their hands at a sink coated in grime and soiled paper towels with only the slightest dribbling of water from the faucet?
Speaking of which, why are people so lazy in public restrooms? Why can't people not make a mess? I'm always very conscientious about my behavior in these dens of bacteria and foul odor. If the paper towel that I toss into the waste bin falls short, I pick it up and stuff it inside. If I splash water on the sink, I'll use a paper towel and dab it up. But so often one is greeted by the sight of an overflowing toilet or sink which has been either abandoned by its last user, or stuffed with towels and toilet paper in an attempt to stop it. "It's not my problem," must be the re-occuring thought going through the minds of all these mouth-breathers who commit this heinous act of toilet abuse.
Public restrooms allow - nay, encourage - the worst behaviour in all of us. We don't have to clean it up. No one we know has to clean it up. It's our one chance to really do something marginally destructive to screw up some poor sod's day. Someone does have to clean that mes up. But since we'll never know him, we all feel perfectly justified in walking away from the overflowing urinal. We'll just step blithely over the murky pool of fluid on the floor, and be on our way. If we destroy a toilet with the effort of our bowels, we'll just walk away - flushing is the next guy's problem.
No courtesy whatsoever. Public restrooms epitomize everything I loathe about modern culture.
