esrosedotblog

Yesterday we lost our internet connections.

Today, at 4AM, the cable company installed a new unground transmitter or something in front of our house.

A guy was here in the afternoon to changeout the modem and our speed doubled in the process.

Not too shabby.

Evidently the in-street thing shorted out burning our modem.

The new modem is state of the art and very fast.

The cable company, Time Warner is a monopoly but they do not act like it. They are very service oriented and the people are competent and friendly.

So I am back in business and no one noticed. Well, maybe not.

Labels: internet

There was no internet this morning.

Well, first there was and then not.

This is the worst case situation as one cannot be certain that it is the cable people or the house.

In this case, it was pretty clearly the cable.

We can call Time Warner but no one will be answering. Mostly, I assume because everyone is calling Time Warner. Even at 3AM.

I hate how I react to this when it happens. I get anxious and begin to freak out.

And yet I know it will be fixed and I will eventually be back in business.

This is the new state of things.

I live through and by the computer. Or think that I do.

Reality is another thing.

I quit trying the impossible, did some things I needed to do and went to the gym.

When I came back, it was "fixed".

This is a new dependency. Not one that I like.

But here I am back on the net telling about it.

I do not expect any sympathy. I got myself into this. I gave up hard copy books. I wouldn't even know how to get to the radio although this is not true. There is always NPR, that supremely smug source of succor.

But I am an internet guy.

We are back in business like I knew we would be. Good times for all.

I just don't like the sudden hit of adrenaline that occurs when they bug out.

Labels: internet

The Chinese have acquired one of the most popular gay male phone apps.

Grindr Sells Stake to Chinese Company

Over half the single gay men I know have Grindr on their phones.

Grindr serves the same purpose as the personal ads did in my day. A way to meet as many men as possible in as short a time as convenient. In the old days, we had to go to gay bars to look over the available guys. Then the personal ads showed up but they were frought.

Unsurprisingly many guys were not very honest in their self description.

30ish GWM seeks same for romantic nights and happy times. Love movies, candlelight and good talk. Swimmer's build, big dick and stamina in the sack desired--no fems no fatties no sm

Well, not really but you get the idea.

John and I met through a personal ad. I met a lot of guys that way. The rules were simple and probably the same today. Meet on neutral ground for a drink, nothing longer. Keep the next couple of hours open in case it worked out. Always always always let a friend know where you were and where you were going with bracketing phone calls.

Some of it was cruel. I once drove past a meeting spot and didn't like the looks of a guy and then never showed up. The same or similar happened to me.

I do not know if Grindr is different but there is the advantage of a quick response and an almost encyclopedic choice of the men available right now.

The old joke. "I'm not looking for Mr. Right, I want Mr. Right Now"

So, in a way, the more things change the more they stay the same.

You have to remember that it is men who use this thing. Who cruise. Who select. It is instinctive. The instinct to spread as much seed as possible is taken seriously. Straight men who may cluck at this have no fucking idea. Really.

But I digress.

The news here is really really that the Chinese have bought this. A Chinese company! The RED Chinese, the repressive society.

Well, it is no secret that the Chinese like their sex. Red hot. Quick and Red-dy. Actually that are not really "red" any more. If they ever were. That is an artifact of the cold war.

They have repressed gays though. Seriously. And still do. So it is hypocritical.

Wouldn't it be interesting if they were buying Grindr in a step toward world domination in the sex industry as a way to gain control over the masses?

Amusing. But in the scheme of things, we are talking about sex here. When the heat is on and the panting begins, gay or straight, ideology goes out the window. And if it doesn't it is a lousy lay and you never go back. I have had a few politicos in my bed. A long time ago. As a category they are a little too fond of the dialectic. Materialistic or not. Talk is a downer. A wilter. Cold water on the need to connect.

Grindr skips all of that. Right to the chase.

Labels: gay life, gay sex, internet

Every once in a while I get something on the 'net that suggests I go to Reddit.

Every time I go, I find that I am totally puzzled about what is going on.

A blue font list of shit that I do not care about.

But I say WTF and try out a couple and, by Jove, it turns out that I was wrong.

I don't merely not get it, I hate almost all the content to the point that I close it up as soon as I can get my mouse in there.

Am I missing something?

I do not even like the little figure that is their trademark.

Help.

Labels: internet

That would be "net neutrality".

Now we all use the internet. A lot. We are the internet dependent generation. Make that plural, generations.

It is important to know what the business end of a utility looks like. But we have commissions and shit to look after all the utilities. But none for the internet. Really.

So the FCC does or does not do its job. What do we care?

A lot, as it happens.

This is one of the best explanations for this whole thing that I have seen so far. And it is from, of all things, the new John Oliver show. He has a cogent, clear wit. The best kind.

Here is a summary text: John Oliver Explains Net Neutrality

"They shouldn't call it 'Protecting Net Neutrality' they should call it 'Stopping Cable Company F*ckery,'" Oliver shouts to a wildly cheering audience.

And here is the video which is rather long but worth it if you really really care about this. As you should. It won't hurt to watch this. You will get pissed off but you will laugh while you are enraging.

Labels: internet

Whatever could go wrong on the internet does.

In this intense and very good film, four situations unfold with consequences that no one might have predicted. Normal people caught in abnormal circumstances.

Disconnect (2012)

A kid who does internet x-rated chat gets manipulated by a television journalist. A couple gets their identity stolen in the middle of a period of great grief. A cyber-detective finds that the internet can strike at home and a couple of kids cause another kid to have a disastrous experience, bullying gone out of control.

Not a quiet film at all. Only two of the situations are connected. The others float off into the quite real universe. The safety of the internet does not exist.

Intense thriller ensues. Edge of the seat stuff.

I could not begin to tell you when and where it will grab you and not let go but I am pretty sure that will happen.

I can only say that it was well worth the ride for me. A satisfying experience all around. Not easy. Just satisfying.

I wonder if I should even post this. Something may be out there to grab my ass.

Actually, that is a bit unfair. If the people in this film suffer from anything it is naiveté.

Failure to take precautions with security data, disinterest in kids' on line activity, television exploitation, sex sites and their impact on the people who serve as the fantasy stand in. Lost in the system.

A nice balance of thriller with cautionary lessons.

There is a lot going on. I would not mind seeing it again sometime. But not tomorrow. A 4 out of Netflix5.

Labels: films, internet

I went through my "codes and passwords" file yesterday and eliminated more than half the content.

It was a walk down memory lane for some of it.

Old passwords to the papers that I used to get on before they had a paywall. The Boston Globe, LATimes and even the local paper no longer open their doors without a price of admission. This is changing times forward, a taste of the future for all print.

Then there are some in which the trend has turned the other way. For example, old passwords, maybe ten revisions, for my repeated difficulties with TimeWarner Cable who has a constant meltdown of its on-line service which is not service at all but torture. Fortunately they answer the phone quickly and wonders upon wonders there is an actual office nearby where I can walk in and talk to a real person who is always nice to me and competent. I would be happy with either one and both is a real pleasure, worth going into the place. The same with ATT which I still cannot rouse on the internet. Only three revisions of my password here just to avoid the drop down warnings that the one I used is no good. I go to the great guys at the local ATT store. They are also lookers which makes it even more pleasant.

Then there are the passwords to things I do not even remember. Carbonite, a security system that was one of those things you paid for but never actually got tested because having a mac there were no viruses. Also some passwords to other services, aggregators, news sources. None lasted long. Attempts to monetize them failed and now they are "This Space Available".

I had passwords for many things like retailers where I only bought one thing. Never went back.

And so on.

My cyber history for all of four years in a vaporizing trail, now vanished as I hit the delete button for over 15 passwords. I stopped counting.

I should probably not say that every one of those passwords were pretty much the same.

I swallow all the warnings with a grain of salt.

A lot of what they are worried about seems to be bullshit to me. A breach of my confidentiality is usually a gross thing like wallet theft or, if they appropriate my web records, the length and complexity of my password is irrelevant. They have it, simple or not.

Dumb stuff. My bank, Wells Fargo, decided to make people have "more secure" passwords. So they ramped the minimum letters up to 8 from six. Yet, at their ATMs where the actual money is, there is still a 4 digit pass which is called a p i n and that is it. Of course they do need my card but still.

My investment guys, Smith Barney, had gone to a system which needed at least one cap, a minimum of two letters, and something else I do not remember. There was a huge mess getting it all started. Then they got absorbed by Morgan Stanley and MS in turn went to a simple but 8 digit minimum requirement. No sense, three years later, defying the trend and making it simpler. They even gave me a live MIS guy on the phone to walk me through the new web site. He laughed when I noted the incongruity and allowed as how none of it made much difference. If they had your pass they had it whether it was four or eight or what.

Of course part of it is that only YOU know what the password is, ostensibly, and it is the mysterious ingredient unless you are really dumb enough to use 2012's dumbest.

Ours is not too complicated actually. It is just our date of meeting but not really as it is off one year and it also has letters which are initials but only in the order of how they actually appear.

One of my sons who needed to get into a website worked his way in by simple guessing. Of course he had to know us a little bit. The year and all. If I need to come up with an 8 digit figure then I just add my birth year.

Now everyone who reads this has some clues. But you don't know my usernames which, in many cases, are as hard to get as any part of it.

For many sites unless there is a credit card and many even where there is, the user name can be any name which you choose to plug in. I have used PaulNewman as well as some others as a homage. No longer as he is dead and I don't want to make it too hard for the hacker.

I went from about thirty passwords down to ten. Not everyone is on there. The money ones are not on anything but a hard copy sheet of paper on the back of a cabinet drawer here. Funny, huh? As secure as a new puppy in the middle of a highway.

Labels: internet, security

I am very happy to see that LinkedIn has gotten into trouble for their routine violation of spamming.

LinkedIn Sued For 'Hacking' Users' Email Accounts To Spam Friends

I have gotten "invite" emails from people I have on my email list who I know are not wanting me on LinkedIn. In fact some of them didn't know that they had been violated. Somehow, they got far enough in the registration process to be identified as red meat.

It is a nasty business and I have been pissed about it for awhile.

When it first happened to me I wrote back a careful email to the person and said I did email and phone calls but no friend sites. None.

They were often mystified about it. I gave it up. It was obvious that I was spending time on an unmanagable situation.

Who knows how this will play out?

But there are predatory aspects to the internet which are really not OK. It is good to see them get some bad publicity, a little spotlight on them and maybe some damage assessment. I think that will take a long time. But it might actually happen. I hope.

I would like to see the fuckers pay.

Labels: internet, spam

WIKIPEDIA

I go to Wikipedia a lot. I tried the others and they are, well, wanting.

I also find the editing process fascinating.

Last year, I gave them money.

They sent me this videotape, well not just me. I knew a lot of this but it was a kick to see these contributors.

Actually, this is a fundraising tape.

You can give them money too.

Now that the election is over I will have some spare cash.

I want to give to things like this.

Not a traditional charity but something like this.

Labels: charity, internet

YOU GOT MY ATTENTION

The other day, I did a post about spices and I put up a photo of McCormick blends, the combined mystery ingredients that make up things like Montreal Steak and Mesquite Smoked. Grill Mates, they are called.

Today, I went to Amazon and ordered a DVD and a book. Never mind what. Nothing about spice certainly.

And there, right under my order in the "shopping cart" were shown the very same spices, sold in combo. Grill Mates.

One. I have never ordered these spices from Amazon.

Two. The spices had absolutely nothing to do with the DVD or the book I bought.

Someone is cross pollinating.

They said this would happen. There is a term for it. Data mining.

It has never happened to me so blatantly.

I don't like it.

But whatcha gonna do?

There it is.

Everything I put on the web will go into whatever else gets put into the web and when it comes out, there will be me.

I am not aware that there is any connection between Amazon and Blogger, or rather Google. Well. Not aware.

Not thinking more like it.

The millennium.

It is interesting that there is not more crossover like this. But look for it. If they can catch my temporary interest in on-line images of spice and plug it into my book and dvd purchase, they can and will connect anything.

Labels: internet, security

VIRTUAL REALITY

Labels: internet

CAPTIVE STATE

I haven't had a good Facebook rant for awhile.

Here is a good starter.

Leaving Facebook

I was not surprised to see recently that Mark Zuckerberg has retained control of FB as many others invested in his enterprise.

No board can overrule him, no stockholders have any say in his decisions unless he chooses to allow it.

It is, in short, an authoritarian state.

This is no surprise of course. FB has always been the Zuck's fifedom and will continue to be so even if on a huge scale.

Why is this wrong?

Well, lots of reasons enumerated more capably in this article. But for one thing that I know personally, it is most blameworthy.

Some of my friends, real ones, not the FB kind, don't look for conspiracy and con jobs in American commerce. At least not this kind. Somehow the wonders of the internet miracle seem to transcend people's skepticism and ability to think.

There is no doubt that many people, my friends included, find affiliation, revived relationships and many other fun and serious things from FB. They do not see the cost to their privacy or their innocence.

FB is notoriously hard to leave. John did it but got emails and shit for a long while about it. Fortunately he didn't have a lot of friended people. He went on for a crass commercial reason himself and wasn't interested in the social aspect. But it was hell to get off.

They have people by the psychological and sociological nuts. And so on.

But at the base, I have never liked the Zucker and I never trusted him in the beginning. Not only does he have "shifty" eyes and a con man's shit eating grin, I have a predisposition to be wary of anything like this.

This is where being a near pathological introvert is a big help.

I cannot imagine digging up the past or friending people I hardly know or putting my personal life out there.

For those who have drunk the Kool-Aid, good luck with that. Keep your eyes on the shit eating grin.

Labels: evil bastards, internet

FACE OFF

I have blogged about my aversion to "facebook", small f.

I knew I was not alone.

The Facebook Resisters

My heart is warmed by this article as many people, young and old, have resigned from the thing or have never considered "joining".

In my own case, it is highly predictable that I would not want to be part of it.

I am an introvert. I never wanted to be in a fraternity, (as my business partner Alex once explained my counter-dependent behavior). I am not interested in social groups on the ground, face to face, let alone electronic.

When friends gush about their experiences on FB, I am inclined to shudder.

I also don't trust it. I don't believe for a minute any of the assurances that they are keeping stuff private. I think they are selling or will sell everything they get.

Moreover, I am offended by any social pressure to sign up. There I am talking "live" with someone and they are saying I should be available on Facebook. What? This face to face isn't enjoyable? OK? Fulfilling?

And you can't get out of it without some major computer gymnastics. John had an account for his book and shut his membership down entirely. Too many lost relatives and friends or people he didn't know at all. Not a book sold.

He says it took over an hour with an expert computer whiz to do the job. Then he had to deal with followup messages which had to be confirmed.

This is just the kind of shit I anticipate from a "social network".

I never joined and never will.

I will not go on and on but this is surely what my old friend Norman back east, used to call "the wreckage of America". The loss of social cohesion under the guise of social enhancement. Alienation. Anomie.

Labels: internet

FACEBOOKLESS

Boy can I identify with this guy.

Labels: cultlure, cults, internet

HIGHLIGHTING THE ABSURDITIES

Labels: fun, internet

DON'T TAKE IT PERSONAL

I have just had a lot of facebook in my face lately. Not only from one person. Maybe three or four. Initiates.

Converts are always the hardest to deal with.

Pink clouds.

I just found this. A breath of fresh air.

Labels: internet, life

PERSONALIZED OUT

Did you know this?

If you and I Google a word or go to Yahoo News right now we will get different results.

The search or the news will be tailored to our computer use history, where we live, what we normally click on. All that.

Holy shit.

Things are getting rather fucked up I would say.

This is, actually, not virtually, censorship.

Labels: internet

THE ALGORHYTHMICS

I told you that I signed up for the subscription to the NYTimes, right?

Well, I did.

Good thing.

They tell me that I have read 249 articles in the past month. Is that March? I guess so because the number doesn't change every time I read one in April.

The new Times deal that I "bought" is 15 dollars per month. Not bad. I spend a lot more than that on books and other reading materials.

Here is the nice thing though. They made a deal with heavy readers. Lincoln cars, I think it was Lincoln, would pay for the first months, all of 2011, if I signed up that day or that week. I did and they did. So I am home free for nine months.

Along with the new deal on the Times, there are some new features.

One is that they have put a "recommended" list on some pages. They have "most emailed" and, on some, "most blogged" and, now, on some pages "recommended for you"

Here we are in algorithm land again. They have such a thing on Amazon for books and Netflix for movies. The Netflix even gave a million dollar award for anyone who could come up with a better "recommender".

Both of them are for the shit.

The worse is Amazon. They list books I would never consider and sometimes, just to be cranky, will list books that I have already ordered! Black and white.

Netflix, I must admit, is a bit better. But not much. Many of the recommended films would not please me at all. I have heard about them, read a review or just got the plot and I don't want to see them.

The NYTimes recommender is better though. Quite surprising. Many of the articles are ones that I have not yet seen in the paper. And, for the most part, they do, in fact, interest me. They have some obvious hooks. Gay issues for example. But others are quite mysterious. When I click through and see the piece they have recommended, it is surprising how many hit the spot. The r-spot. Reading.

Some are lemons. Maureen Dowd for example. Not preferred but usually on the list.

The other thing is that their list does not repeat. There are no articles that I have already read. None.

At first I was quite skeptical. Change. No. But now, I am drawn to it and curious. Very good. The list is singing to me.

OH. Dijkstra's algorithm has nothing to do with newspapers. Clickon to see.

It is just pretty. I was looking for an algorithm illustration and voila!

Dijkstra's Algorithm solves the single-source shortest path problem in weighted graphs. Here we show it running on a planar graph whose edge weights are proportional to the distance between the vertices in the drawing -- thus the weight of an edge is equal to its visible length.

I don't think that is going to get on my recommended list of articles.

Labels: internet, news

EASTERN COVER

It is exciting to see what is happening in the Middle East.

All the way from Israel's waning influence on US foreign policy to the details of the uprisings in the various Arab states.

So, here on my daily tour of the internet is a new bookmark.

Al Jazeera English

I don't stay long. Scan it and run. But when I get inside some of its coverage, it is well written and balanced.

There is a lot going on out there in the world and US outlets hardly cover it. The networks still do a good job but there is so little time devoted. CNN is a disaster. And the others, political.

It will be interesting to see when the first AJE item hits the blog.

Labels: internet, news

I AM AN OBSERVER

This is an old rant. I have written it a dozen times.

But, I am revved up again so here I go.

I do not text. I do not have that service. If I get a text it costs me 25 cents and I will tell you so.

I do not have wireless on my "phone". What is a "phone" now anyway?

I am not on Facebook. I will not Twitter. I don't want fucking any of it.

I have enough trouble keeping myself away from my computer for news, blogging (mine and others), movies and the like.

But none of this computer "work" is done while you are standing there with me. I am alone.

Well, sometimes John and I do have our moments with emailing each other from across the room. A photo. A little message.

I can imagine what it would be like around here if we both texted and did the social networks and read the news and the rest of it on our "phone".

I watch people. There are folks who will not maintain eye contact but will stand aside of you, device in hand, glancing to see if a text has come in during the chat. I can feel them pull away.

I hear the problems of the social networks. Too much oversharing. Is that redundant? I suppose so. Unwanted "friends". Gossip gone awry. Private photos made public. (Hey look, if you put a photo on the internet anywhere it is public. Listen to me!)

Now this.

Ahem. Are you talking to me? (or texting?)

Everyone knows it. No one likes it.

It is the new drug.

I can get away with not being involved. I don't have a job and my friends don't expect me to. It is not a precondition for their affection.

Of course, this is because if you are my "friend" you are probably not going to be my true friend.

Boy, do I hate this shit.

I know that parents and kids use texting to stay in touch. Lovers too. A lot of relationships can benefit from it. Us? We send emails. But Jesus H. Christ! Most of what passes for important is not compared to the real, live person standing or sitting next to you.

Here is one good thing about texting. It has virtually eliminated the boorish loud mouth talking on the cell phone while others are trying to eat, think, talk or just be quietly alone. That guy is now the compulsive thumber. The screen peaker.

Progress? Not by a long shot.

Labels: cults, culture, internet