ESRB vs NIMF vs MILFs

Ok, that last part was made up. No one is against MILFs, at least not yet. Doesn't it seem weird though that everything has an orginization against it? Drunk driving has MADD, Google has privacy advocate groups, RIAA and MPAA have the entire world, ACLU has reason.... it never seems to end does it? Well lucky for us, for all you parents that don't have the common sense to figure out how the ESRB works, we have an advocacy group for you. Its called The National Institute on Media and the Family, and its sole purpose is to make sure you're kids aren't being marketed things like Halo or Grand Theft Auto for your little young ones so they don't trick you into buying said games without doing any research at all. Cause God forbid there is an easy-to-use system on all of the boxes that clearly tell you what age groups should be playing said games.

Alright, enough sarcasm. Do I care about Manhunt 2 getting pulled from distrobution or Rockstar getting this black eye? No. There is a line called taste, and Rockstar may have crossed it. But, because of the naysayers track records on past games like Bully, I actually gave Rockstar the benifit of a doubt. No, I've never played or seen footage of Manhunt 2. I agree that making an innocent civillian shooter is a terrible thing, including those created in completely bad taste, but is it protected under free speech? Personally I think ESRB did this soley because it wasn't a popular game to begin with, it was developed by Rockstar, and it was violent. Rockstar didn't lose terribly over missing the ship date of this game, and the ESRB can look good by showing NIMF that it can prevent violent games from entering the market, which I guess looks good to NIMF because it keeps the truth from their supporters that they don't have a constitutional leg to stand on.

Enough ranting and raving. I'm done. I got a different viewpoint from a mother and still feel like I made some good points on my own. We don't need a lettered orginization telling people what to buy. Take some responsibility for your own actions.

Why I'm Not Getting an iPhone

You didn't misread the title. I'm not purchasing an iPhone. Some people have their reasons, to me it comes down to asking myself what I'm buying and whether it's worth it. I should preface this post with this. By all accounts I should be lining up first day to buy one. Reason number one, my Cingular servitude is running up this August. I'm familiar with their network, I'm a valued customer, and probably a shoe-in for a renewal. Reason number two, I recently purchased a Macbook Pro. Mac users have been waiting eons for the ability to sync a PDA with iCal with Apple-like serendipity. If I want a good PDA that will truly be effortless in setup, another Apple product is the way to go. This is because there is not a snowballs chance in hell a Blackjack running Windows Mobile whatever is gonna sync with iCal. I haven't personally looked into it and maybe I'm wrong but this seems pretty obvious that I shouldn't keep my hopes up. Reason number three, my demographic. A 23 year old male with a decent job and very tech knowledgeable shouldn't have any qualms over getting a hip iPhone.

With all of those great reasons, why am I not getting out my camping gear? For starters, I seriously don't have the spare 500 dollars to justify getting something that will litter ally have to replace many electronic devices I already own. I have a 60 gig iPod for music and movies, a black Razr for phone calls, rudimentary web surfing, and texting, and a black DS Lite for gaming (and maybe web surfing, more on that later). Replacing all of these things would be great, but its not like its a heavy burden to carry them. Also, having an all in one device just means that when it gets stolen you lose all functionality.

Would I buy a cool Apple phone/PDA with no iPod built in? Sure, especially if the user input wasn't a touch screen (seriously I have big fingers, hard to pinpoint), but for right now for me, it looks like I'm going to have to experience the iPhone through someone else. Which is fine for me, because right now I don't really think I need it.

What to do About Diggspam

This Gizmodo article talks about a policy thats been badly in need for some time now.

A new Digg policy here, out of respect for the Digg community.

-No big yellow Digg badges for articles unless they have original content, new reporting, treatment, or photos.

It's not fair when we get the Digg for someone else's work. Let's keep the signal-to-noise ratio high, dudes.

And btw, Digg user "Iwanttodiggthis," I appreciate you reading Gizmodo so closely, as you're clearly a supporter, but can you stop submitting almost every story we have? – Brian Lam

Whats good about this is that, unfortunately, it forces people into voting articles on Gizmodo that Gizmodo creates. Everyone wants eyeballs out there on the web and I'm a big proponent of self-policing, but diggers should stop posting to digg the aggregaters of content and do what the submission site says itself, post directly to the content. Granted, these smaller sites would more likely succumb to the diggeffect but they would also reap more benefit from the advertising dollars. Maybe, just maybe this idea will spread and keep blogspam off Digg.

A Blog by Any Other Name

I would call myself a general connoisseur of what the web has to offer, and more often then not its one giant talk radio station. One thing that gets me is what is and is not a blog. Most people don't care, and that's fine. They read op-ed pieces on the internet, in the paper, a blog is just the format for said op-ed. Sometimes its the author's (or author group's) personal opinion about something current on the web, usually technology. Sometimes its just writing for the sake of detox. And I don't have a problem with any of that. What I do have a problem with is when people create a blog with their namesake, and not the only writer. Anderson Cooper and John C. Dvorak are the best examples of this. I love both of their work, great writers and have a lot to say. But when you have other op-ed writers making posts just for the sake of being current, when do you lose your identity?

I almost hate reading their column not because I don't like reading whats written, but sometimes I read a full article only to discover in the by-line its not even them! This is probably is something in the realm of stuff-only-Justin-cares-about but it's frustrating all the same. Don't sacrifice identity to keep your page fresh.

Do No Evil (Again)

It appears that Google is once again creating controversy over something seemingly benign. Many web sources are saying how Google's new Street View is really just another way for the conglomerate to invade our privacy. And more annoyingly, link it to their now infamous phrase "Don't Be Evil". I've already written about what I think of the flak they get but it seems now that operating in China and gathering cookie data about searches isn't bad enough, there is this new-fangled Street View to worry about!

Please. If you're doing something illegal, inappropriate, or something in completely bad taste in plain sight of the road then who are you to complain. Did you know that when TV crews are filming in public places, they could immortalize you picking your nose in the background of the 6 o'clock news?

A comment on a random blog (this link, comment by "Dr.Zoinkelstein")

"It isn't shocking, but I challenge you to find a better solution for taking live photos of cities that can balance interests of consideration against those of practicality. Tell a neighborhood you are showing up to immortalize it (for a few months) and the advertising, slander, inappropriate nudity, etc... comes out of the wood works. In truth, they probably should exhibit some better manners in notifying sensitive places (abortions centers) about such things, but no one said that digitizing images was going to be antiseptic.

In any case, at the end of the day, Google is still providing pioneering free and useful services and is in my opinion, the most outrageously ethical corporation that has ever been in the fortune 500. It isn't a perfect corporation, and I will be curious to see if it can maintain its culture and ethics as it expands past 15, 20 and 30 thousand employees, but it is a cultural experiment in corporate and profit structure that usually meets with more condemnation than it deserves."

Should you not go to an abortion clinic because they have protesters (most of them do by the way) or the porno theatre because your likeness might be captured by a passing Google Street View cam (once every three months estimated)? I don't know, but living life like there is no surveillance or nosy people is a happier life then constantly being worried.

And at least you can request to remove an unflattering picture right on the page. Giving you a way out, even through they have legal ground to keep it up without your permission? Sounds very not-evil to me.

So Google Images will now employ face recognition technology for its images. This, I feel, is a mixed blessing. It is another cool little thing Google did to enhance searches but I'm wondering when people will start drawing faces on phallus-es to make it in a search.

Technology Woes

I've never had a problem using technology as a means to an end to get what I need done. Web based email to check and keep up with friends and family, a modded Xbox for movie and music storage and server capability. A music player to listen to music and podcasts, keeping me sane at work. But there are a few advancements that I think we as a society could do without, and Twitter is a great example. Thankfully, only the technocrats know exactly what its for and use it often, but what it basically does is lets you give live up-to-the-minute updates about your thoughts to people who are subscribed to your twitter. You post to twitter by just sending a text message, or on their website, and it then texts everyone who has subscribed to you. But what practical application is there, really?

If my friends want to do something, they either text or call my cell. They all have cell phones. And while there is some voyeristic leanings with this service that makes it interesting, its not interesting enough to anyone what I think or feel any given minute. Myspace was useful only because it lets the luddites create a webpage and others easily find and link their webpage to yours. This is not new, just look at Geocities back in the day. In fact, the only difference between Geocities and Myspace, is that Geocities didn't have the foresight to make it easy for people to link to one another and post comments, show who is your friend, in house email system, free easy to use blog software. To their credit, they did their best to be a free website host, but imagine what if. Now, it seems, that the masses attracted to Myspace may leave it for the same reason they joined. Facebook, with their recent inclusion of people not neccessarily in college may be the 'next new thing', who knows.

All I know for a fact is my circle of friends doesn't really need to know what I'm doing at any given moment, its too impractical.