Book Review - The Royal Stuarts by Allan Massie

Over the last few years, my love of History has transformed and broadened. I used to be mainly a military history nut, and I still am (and I'm still a nut, too, but that's unrelated). But I have also moved on to things like Medieval History, especially European History that encompasses almost anything from the end of the Roman Empire all the way up to more recent times.

One area I have not covered much is the history of Scotland. That's not really by choice; it's just that I haven't found a good book on the subject crossing my path. There should be one soon, I would think, as some little-studied (by me, anyway) areas of history keep popping up in books by authors I like.

The Royal Stuarts, by Allan Massie, sort of wets that whistle, though not entirely. The book is a biography of the entire Stuart line of kings and queens of England, from Robert II back in 1371 (Scotland only) all the way to James III (VIII in Scotland), a king without a country as he was in exile his entire life. Each chapter is about a monarch, so earlier chapters are shorter as there is less documentation on them than there is on later royal members.

My review of the book is up on Curled Up With a Good Book.

From my review:

"The history of Great Britain is well-mined territory for many casual history readers with any interest in Europe through the ages. Two areas that I have missed in all of my reading, however, are Scotland and the English kings (and queen) after Elizabeth. Many (like me) stop with Elizabeth and don't delve any further. However, the Stuarts are an interesting family in themselves, especially James I (best known for the King James version of the Bible) who immediately succeeded Elizabeth. With The Royal Stuarts, Allan Massie takes a look not only at James and his post-Elizabeth version of Great Britain, but also the entire Stuart family from beginning to end. A welcome side effect is that the reader gets a nice (if somewhat superficial) history of Scotland as well."

I greatly enjoyed this book, and I will have to make do on my promise to myself to find a book on Scottish history soon.

In the meantime, The Royal Stuarts will do me well. It's nice to see that the Stuarts were such a randy bunch of guys, especially the early ones.

A Television Icon Returns - And Nobody's Shot Him...Yet

I was watching something on TV last week, and saw an ad for the Summer shows on Bravo TV up here in Canada. And one of the ones that slipped by very quickly seemed to have a familiar face in it.

I turned to my wife and said "Was that Dallas?"

To the Internet, Boy Wonder!

Good ol' J.R. is looking a bit long in the tooth

I checked Internet Movie Database, and sure enough, Dallas is coming back. That 1980s night-time soap that spawned Knots Landing (a show that I consider a guilty pleasure of my past), another night-time soap. Maybe that will come back? Is Donna Mills still hot?

Anyway, yes, Dallas is coming back, and it's not being rebooted. This won't be a show with a similar plotline and recast characters. This is a sequel of sorts. At least three of the original stars are back: Larry Hagman (J.R.), Patrick Duffy (Bobby), and Linda Gray (Sue Ellen). And this time, they've brought their kids.

Here's the trailer that came out for it in December:



It will be on TNT in the States, and I believe it starts on June 13.

I won't be watching it, but I'm not sure if I am pleased that it's coming back or horrified. The plot, for those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, is that the Ewing clan is a family whose riches are steeped in Texas oil. J.R. Ewing is a manipulative bastard who will do anything to get ahead. Bobby is his brother, the nice guy who very famously appeared in a shower. Sue Ellen was J.R.'s wife, though I'm sure they're divorced by now if they weren't already in the original show (knowing that would require me to care).

The new incarnation of the series will have these three characters, along with supposedly three others from the original series, along with their progeny who it turns out are just as bad as their parents.

And hilarity will ensue, I'm sure.

Oh, that and steamy sex. Can't forget that.

The series will be like most TNT series, 10-episode seasons. The first season will be this Summer and I guess we'll see from there.

Are you as pumped as I am for the return of this show? Have you been missing it like I have?

And if you match either of those, what's wrong with you?

Book Review - Critical Path by Dan Amrich

Those of you know me well, or even just a little bit, probably know that I'm a big video game fan. So it should come as no surprise to you that I jumped at the chance to read a book on video game reviewing. Especially a book by that game reviewing legend, Dan Amrich.

I first came to know Dan from the Official Xbox Magazine podcast and then saw some of his reviews in the magazine. I followed him when he went to Activision to become their social media manager (or whatever the official title is) and now religiously listen to his One of Swords podcast about Activision games and gaming (though it is so much more than that).

Anyway, he has been working on a book about game reviewing for a long while, and he's finally self-published it. Dubbed Critical Path (a brilliant name, if I do say so), it gives the reader all of the ins and outs on becoming a game reviewer. Some may not know this, but I did, for a short while, entertain the idea of becoming a game reviewer. I even started my own game review blog (which I haven't posted to in over a year). If I had read this book first, I wouldn't have bothered entertaining that dream, because I know I wouldn't have the dedication and energy required in order to do so. It was a casual flirtation, so it's good that it died there.

The reason for that is that Dan pulls no punches. He doesn't discourage readers from trying to become game reviewers. But he does tell you exactly what it entails, with no sugar-coating whatsoever.

My review of the book has gone up on Curled Up With a Good Book.

From the review:

"Critical Path covers everything you're going to need in order to get your dream job of reviewing video games. He even mentions things that you might not think of but which are very important to keep in mind, such as having a bit of empathy for the game's creators who have spent many long months, if not years, putting together this game that you're getting ready to trash with a horrible review. He suggests trying your own hand at developing something, even if it's something simple, just so you get the feeling of what it's like.

The book covers a steady career path from getting your work noticed to becoming a freelancer to finally getting your dream job working at a gaming magazine or web site. He also shatters many illusions that young people who want to do this job probably have. You're not going to get rich doing this, and it's not just going into the office at 9am, picking up a controller and playing games all day, then going home at 5pm. It's actual work. Amrich pulls no punches in his description of just what this job entails and how hard it is to do when you go into it with blinders on. It's not discouraging in any way. He just wants to make sure you're going into it knowing the truth. He even addresses issues like dressing professionally and developing the social skills that you're going to need for interacting with people in the business. Again, it's not just hiding out and playing games all day by yourself."

It truly is a wonderful book, despite the minor issues I point out in the review (and Dan has rightly commented to me, and I've asked the editor to update the review, that the screenshots actually do come out very well if you have a Kindle Fire or something like that to read the book on. I was reading on a basic Kindle, and they were totally worthless on that platform).

Reading the book just reinforces the fact that I'd love to sit at a convention (maybe it would have been Pax, but those tickets sadly sold out almost overnight *sniff*) with Dan and have a beer, just talking video games.

If you have any love for video games whatsoever, go read this book!

When real-life death hits online

One of life's certainties, in addition to taxes, is death. Since the dawn of time, humans had to deal with not only the death of our loved ones, but the aftermath. Settling accounts. Changing our life to compensate for the loss.

Yes, we should always make arrangements so that our loved ones have as easy a time as possible in regards to settling our affairs.

In this day and age, with the rise of social media as well as other online fora where people can hang out and socialize, it becomes even more of an issue. I blogged about this before, but two recent articles on All Twitter made me think about it again.

The first article is called "When You Die in Real Life, Who Will Keep You Alive on Twitter?" and was written back in 2010. The reason I found it is because there is a new article up, dated May 22. Entitled "What Happens To Your Twitter When You Die? Creating A Social Media Will," this one talks about the nuts and bolts of things just a little bit more.

The first article talks about similar things to my earlier post (and I'm proud to say that mine came first, so you can't accuse me of thievery), about things like "who will notify your network if you should happen to die unexpectedly?" You've established a presence online, on Facebook and Twitter, or even a blog. You even have a following, friends that only know you from your online personality. I have numerous friends like that, all of whom have never met me. We correspond by email or via our social media sites, but that's it. Without going through my email box (which I guess is something she would have to do), my wife's not going to know how to get a hold of any of these people to tell them. Hopefully there's at least one person that's prominent enough that she would be able to let that person know and the other person can spread it.

As for accounts, the article makes a good point about having logins and passwords. Is your loved one going to be able to even get into your account in order to let those who care online know about your death?

A lot of that I covered in my previous post, but I love this line from Shea's blog:

"This is perhaps a subject that nobody likes to think about, but it’s a reality, and one that can force itself upon us at any moment. Like you, I plan to live forever, but just in case the worst happens, what preparations can you take to ensure that the people who care about you don’t just think you disappeared?

(And if you think this is ridiculous and your followers wouldn’t care, then you need to find different followers.)"

Really, if nobody cares what happens to you, why are they following in the first place?

I think the more recent article is even more interesting, because it talks about the ins and outs of your actual online presence. With identity theft a big problem these days, not to mention the possible pain of seeing your loved one coming up on Facebook searches and the like, it's a good idea to have somebody take care of your online presence when you die.

"Your Twitter is probably where you share posts from blogs that you may or may not own, and it’s likely linked to a bunch of other accounts as well. When you die, someone could potentially gain access to one of these accounts and be able to glean enough info to steal your identity. That’s bad enough when you’re alive, but SUPER annoying for your next of kin to try to sort out when you’re dead."

The blog gives a link to the USA.gov site with tips on not only writing wills, but writing "social media wills," which can include how each of your online accounts should be handled.

Much like a regular will makes your intentions known so that your loved ones don't have to worry about how to deal with your assets, a social media will helps them not have to worry about making decisions regarding things like your blog, your Twitter, and all of that.

Facebook, for example, you can either have your account deleted or they can create a "memorial" page where people can still see you and the stuff you did, but they can't add anything new to it. It also suggests that you actually have a social media executor who will take care of all of this, and it suggests making sure that he/she will get a copy of your death certificate because they he/she might need it in dealing with your various accounts.

This can be even more important if there is money involved, like if you've monetized your blog or if you have Paypal and stuff like that. If somebody gets into there and starts going crazy, your loved ones will have a lot of headaches to deal with that they would rather not have had.

It's all food for thought. I basically have only a couple, so I'm not sure if I'd go the whole formal executor route, but I would definitely think about making sure my accounts are accessible somewhere by my wife in case something were to happen to me.

Because you can never be too careful.

For those who subscribe to this blog by email - and an MST3K treat

You're going to get a little something extra this morning. Possibly.

I'm not sure of the ins and outs of how Blogger's scheduling system and Feedburner's email subscription works, so maybe not.

I just did a post that I meant to schedule for Monday, May 28.

I accidentally scheduled it for May 21.

Which, as you know, has already passed.

I've now edited it and it will be coming out on Monday as planned, but I don't know whether it will be emailed to you tonight because it was published. Publishing it on May 21 may mean it won't show up in your email box. Or it may go back in time and show up in your box last Monday.

Wouldn't THAT be funny?

Anyway, this doesn't affect many people, but I would like to know whether you get the post or not. Just so that I get an idea how this subscription thing works. If one of you could let me know, it's a Dallas post.

Much appreciated!!

We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming.

Podcast Stuff - Ep 36 of Down the Hall

Ain't nostalgia grand?

In this week's episode, Jenny and I talk about our past school lives and just what exactly technology in education was like in our younger days. I actually go back to compiling computer programs with punch cards!

We also explain why Fiona isn't on this week (so you new Fiona fans don't come at us with pitchforks) as well as talking about a couple of interesting sites that we discovered on Twitter. It's amazing how much cool stuff you can find on Twitter. Why aren't you on Twitter yet?

Anyway, the meat of the episode was the interview that I did with Sandy Kendell, who works with K-12 teachers in Texas and helps them with their professional development. We have a long and awesome conversation about social media and technology and how all of this has transformed both the classroom as well as their development opportunities. She's a great person to talk to and also to follow on Twitter if you're involved in the field at all.

And for those you who are just being lazy layabouts on this gorgeous morning (or night, if you're half-way around the world), why not spend just a little bit of energy and go to our Facebook page and "like" us over there?

There may be a cookie in it for you.

Internet Hate and Why It's So Prominent

On my way home from work today, I was listening to one of my favourite podcasts, the Lasertime show put on by a bunch of the guys who used to do Talk Radar. (For those of my fans who don't read my media/pop culture posts, please keep reading. I only use some of those for reference points in order to make a larger point)

The subject of this particular episode isn't important, but as usual they all went off on tangents anyway, and one of them was on the incessant need for some people on the Internet to hate things. Especially popular things. And to hold onto this hate beyond any sense of rationality.

It really is a phenomenon that I have seen from time to time, though thankfully not too much recently. The reason for that is more where I hang out than because it's quieting down. Because it's certainly not doing that.

I feel your pain, Benny

You find this a lot in relation to various pop culture things like movies, games, books, television, and things like that. People have this irrational need to get into long, pointless arguments about things that really don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Who would win in a fight: Galactus or Darkseid? Did Han Solo really shoot first when he killed Greedo, or is Lucas lame for making that change? Which Star Wars movie is the worst one? Just how many women out there would love to date me if I wasn't already taken? (Believe me, those arguments are legion and have gone on for fourteen years or so. It's also been responsible for a catfight or two)

I've graduated beyond these for the most part, and I've never taken part in them. Now I read (mostly) civilized debates on policy and stuff like that. I still occasionally check out game fora and the like, and you've never seen Internet hate until you've seen the comments in a post about Activision's Call of Duty franchise. The anti-Activision rants can reach legendary proportions.

So why do people on the Internet hate so much?

I think a large part of it is the anonymity that the Internet offers. On most fora that I visit, you can put whatever you want into the profile page. You don't have to use your real name. You can just go by "hist" like I do (well, not exactly like I do, or I may sue your ass off...or the system software just won't allow duplicate accounts. One of the two). You don't have to go by Dave Roy. You don't have to say anything about yourself.

Ok, some things I can go along with

So when Craigslistfan36533 starts ripping on those fans of Twilight or Star Trek or whatever, he can do so with complete confidence that nobody will ever come to his house and beat his face in. He can go to a Trek forum and say anything he wants. He would be different from a troll (as I described in a previous post) because he's not going there just to get a reaction. He honestly believes that whatever he's discussing sucked. He honestly can't believe that somebody likes it.

He just likes to get the hate on and not let it go.

Which brings us to another symptom of this phenomenon. The irresistible attraction to commenting (and hating) on something that really isn't aimed at you in the first place.

Chris Antista on this episode talked about this, and it resonated with me too, partially because I'm guilty of some aspects of this. He mentioned the backlash against things like Twilight (a book series that is obviously not aimed at 30-year-old men) and, more pertinent to me, Justin Bieber. I admit, I have made my share of "Bieber is the sign of doom!" jokes, but they're mostly jokes. I certainly don't hate the kid, and I would never go to a site devoted to him and trash him.

But he is an easy target, and maybe I should lay off those a little bit. I promise I've made my last Bieber joke on this blog.

May the worst demon from Hell strike me down if that is not so.

Ok, that was my last one.

C'mon. Breaking an addiction is hard!

Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, Internet hate.

One last aspect of Internet hate that I just find really odd, and I believe either Chris or Brett Elston also mentioned this on the podcast is the fact that arguments on the Internet seem to be never-ending.

If you and your buddies are at a bar, having some beers, and you get into a discussion about which ship would kick ass in a fight, the Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon, you'll debate it for a bit, get a bit drunker, start ogling the ladies at the end of the bar, and the argument will be quickly forgotten.

Not so on the Internet (maybe that's because there are no ladies at the end of the Internet bar?). That argument will go on for days and days. It may die down for a brief while, but somebody will always resurrect it. It may be an unsuspecting third party who, by saying something totally innocent, will step in it and look at his shoe like it's covered in dog shit. But something will happen. And the argument starts all over again.

Can this phenomenon be explained? I honestly don't know, because it completely mystifies me.

Just like most Internet fan-hate does.

Which is probably why it's a good thing I'm not a practitioner of it, isn't it?

Have you seen this sort of thing around before in the Internet environments you frequent? Or even where you don't frequent?

Inquiring minds want to know.

The Plea for Quiet in the Cubicle World

Do you work in an office with an "open" floor plan? A maze of cubicle walls with desks behind them in little spaces, open to the world as far as noise goes even though technically you can't see anybody without actually getting up. At least usually.

People who work in these types of floorplans are trying a variety of ways to get some semblance of their privacy, or at least their sanity, back. (Disclaimer: The office I work in does have one area with an open floor plan, but I do have my own office).

Oh, if only they stayed this clean

I saw this interesting article in the New York Times (probably linked from Instapundit, considering I don't know where else that I read would actually point me to that paper).

As people's walls have disappeared, they start putting up new ones. As Raj Udeshi, a software entrepreneur, is quoted in the article, "Headphones are the new wall." People are increasingly searching for their own space when they are crowded by their co-workers.

There are definitely some intriguing things in the article about what companies are doing to help alleviate some of this stuff. I guess it's cheaper than walls.

For example:

"When Autodesk, a software company, moved into a an open-plan building in Waltham, Mass., three years ago, it installed what is known as a pink-noise system: a soft whooshing emitted over loudspeakers that sounds like a ventilation system but is specially formulated to match the frequencies of human voices.

Autodesk ran the system for three months without telling the employees — and then, to gauge its impact, turned it off one day."

They received a lot of complaints. I guess the frequencies did a good job masking the general office chatter around them.

"They were being distracted by conversations 60 feet away. When the system’s on, speech becomes unintelligible at a distance of about 20 feet."

I find that fascinating, as I didn't realize that kind of thing worked. I would think it would be exactly the opposite; the low-level noise would bother you despite the fact that perhaps you can't consciously hear it.

So what does an open office floor plan do to productivity?

People are bothered by the noise of their co-workers, of course. This isn't even necessarily an intentional thing. Sometimes you just have to be on the phone. And that phone conversation can get distracting for those around you.

The utter lack of privacy is another problem with this. People are increasingly turning to email or instant messaging to discuss more private things and to have conversations that won't bother their co-workers even if they aren't necessarily private.

I love this quote from the article:

"You talk to more people in an open office, but I think you have fewer meaningful conversations,” said Jonathan McClelland, an energy consultant working in the loft. “You end up getting interrupted a lot by people’s random thoughts."

I think that's totally true. You probably do interact with your co-workers more, just because you almost can't help it.

What about when a worker does need privacy of some kind? What if they're dealing with union issues, or they have to make a medical appointment? Some offices have a private area, but these aren't always useful because either they're used constantly by a couple of people are they just don't feel that private. Somebody can barge in at any time if they want to use it for the same reason, and thus you're interrupted again.

An interesting stat mentioned in the article from the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health says that there is a 5-10% decline in performance for cognitive activities like reading, writing, and other kinds of creative things when workers are in an open office like this. I actually believe this totally. When I'm writing, be it a story, a blog post, or if I'm writing something for work, I like to have music on, and I prefer to be alone (which is easy at work, of course). However, the music has to be instrumental. If there are words, I do get distracted way too easily and my creative process is hampered.

Finally, the article mentions that some companies are offering a booth or two for employees to use when they need to chat with a co-worker. Evidently it inhibits the spread of the noise of the conversation so that it doesn't affect the rest of the office. I'm not sure exactly how that works, though I suppose it does. I would say that restaurants have shown how this can keep private conversations private, but it's hard to tell considering almost every restaurant has music or something else blaring and thus that could be what's covering it up.

Regardless, I'd love to hear your thoughts. Do you work in an open floor plan? If so, what do you think? Does your office do anything like the ambient noise that is designed to lessen the effect of other office noises?

Movies - Dark Shadows and Avengers

Since this weekend is a long weekend up here in Canada (Victoria Day is today, for those of you who don't know), we decided to do a movie day yesterday. There are a bunch of movies we want to see this Summer, so why not get started!

Today's double-bill was Dark Shadows and The Avengers. We'd been wanting to see the latter since it came out but wanted to let the crowds die down a bit. Dark Shadows isn't doing very well, so who knows how long it will stay in the theater here? Avengers has been out for three weeks, so we figured it was a good time to go.

First, let me say that there are still lines for Avengers. Yes, even after three weeks! We got stuck in one, but thankfully we weren't in it for long before they let us in.

Meanwhile, I believe there were around 10-15 people at most in the 12:20 pm showing of Dark Shadows. That is not a good sign.

What did I think of the two movies? They were night and day, and not just in tone. Also in quality.

Dark Shadows was the first one we saw. The trailers made it look funny as hell, with a lot of "fish out of water" scenes of Johnny Depp playing the 200-year-old vampire Barnabas Collins unfamiliar with all of this newfangled 1972 technology. While those jokes are definitely in there, and director Tim Burton does play with the "out of time" aspect of Collins' re-awakening, the movie is much more than that. I felt that the trailers did the movie a disservice. Those fans of the original 1966 soap opera (or the great remake that was done in the early 90s with Ben Cross as Barnabas) know there's much more to the show than that. But if you're not familiar with it? There's a lot in there you wouldn't expect.

There are a great many funny scenes in the movie, but there are also just as many that miss the mark. The wife and I were the only ones in the theater that laughed uproariously at a keyboard music joke (what is with these people we were with?), but other scenes dragged on and weren't funny at all. Then, of course, there was the drastic changes in tone, sometimes within a scene. A scene will be played for laughs throughout most of it and then turn to horror right at the end. I understand that this is probably supposed to be a "dark" comedy, but this movie got a bit ridiculous on that score at times.

There are some great performances in the movie, but they are wasted in a film with barely any character development at all. Michelle Pfeiffer is criminally under-used as the matriarch of the current Collins clan. Helena Bonham Carter is the psychiatrist Dr. Julia Hoffman, a character who only seems to be in the movie because she was important in the series. In the movie, she does nothing and is a total waste of screen time (though Carter's performance certainly can't be faulted). Eva Green as the witch Angelique (the woman who loved Barnabas back in the 1760s and who cursed him to become a vampire) is extremely hot in her role, but over-acts it to an extreme.

There were bits I loved in the movie and parts that I hated, but overall I'd say it's worth seeing if you get a chance. Just don't pay full price, and if you can, wait for HBO or something.

As for Avengers, I have to say something right now.

SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, that was the comic book nerdgasm that I had when the movie started. This movie is everything a Marvel superhero junkie could want in a movie with some of their favorite characters. These characters, Thor, Captain America, Nick Fury, Iron Man, Hulk, and many others, have all been introduced in various other Marvel hero movies, all culminating in this two and a half hour extravaganza that is beautiful from start to finish. There's everything a comic-book lover could want in there, but it's told so well that it's no surprise so many non-comics fans have also enjoyed the movie.

In fact, there's more character development in this action-fest than there is in the entirety of Dark Shadows. Robert Downey Jr. steals the show as Tony Stark/Iron Man, with constant quips and great dialogue that comes from a combination of screenwriter/director Joss Whedon's brilliance and Downey's excellent touch. Mark Ruffalo is a surprise as Bruce Banner/Hulk, in the sense that he didn't originate the role unlike the other characters in the movie. He brings a very nice, subtle touch to Banner, a man who has come to terms with his dark side and has figured out how to control it.

Needless to say, the special effects are amazing, but somebody like Whedon is not going to make a movie that's all about the FX. The Avengers cares just as much about character as action, and there are quite a few scenes between these disparate heroes who shouldn't get along, but are able to come together for a common cause.

I loved everything about this movie, with just a couple of minor quibbles that are contain a bit of spoilers so I won't go into them here.

All in all, it was a very good afternoon. Dark Shadows was enjoyable enough that I didn't regret going and Avengers more than made up for it anyway. That is a movie that we may very well see again, this time in 3-D. Or maybe not.

Can anybody tell me whether the 3-D is worth it in this one? I heard that they did it in post-production, which rarely turns out good, in my opinion.

A Rainy, Bloggy Sunday Night

(Thanks to 2010Vancouver)

It's another one of those nights where I'm in a bit of a pensive mood. I've got headphones on, listening to some Sonny Rollins on Grooveshark. The light's on, but it's totally quiet otherwise. After two weeks of sunny, incredible weather, it's raining like hell out there and has been all day. They say we're supposed to get rain all week, which really sucks since this is graduation week and we're holding a reception for those MET graduates who come to the ceremony on Thursday.

I have created a number of playlists on Grooveshark to help with my writing. There's a Mars Lasar one, Mike Oldfield, Jazz, Celtic, and a Delerium one. Grooveshark really is an amazing service for streaming music where you can form your own playlists and just let them go. Or you can find new stuff.

Which I don't do very often, going more for what I like than what I don't know.

The headphones I have on are keeping all of the noise out of my ears, but I was listening to the rain outside earlier. In fact, we were out in it for a brief bit when we left the movie theater (my movie post will be going up tomorrow morning). I love sunny days, but there's something to be said for rainy, overcast ones too. I don't know why. Maybe I'm just weird that way. As long as I'm not out in it, though, rain just doesn't depress me like it does some people. I see a strange beauty in rain that rivals (in a much different way, of course) that of the sun.

One of the things I've done tonight, which I do often, is look at my blog stats. I know some bloggers don't worry about their stats, how many hits their blogs have received. I wouldn't say I *worry* about it either. I am just interested in seeing who's coming to my blog and from where. When I get a hit from somewhere local here in the Lower Mainland, I wonder if it's one of my students who has found my blog somehow.

And I love to see how they get to my blog. When there's a Facebook referral, I always wonder which of my friends it is (unless a friend has shared the post on their page, which means it could be one of their friends). There's no way I can tell, of course. It's just intriguing.

Which brings me to one thing that's slightly annoying, but not enough to make me fret too much.

It's really strange that the majority of my hits are from image searches. Long-time readers of this blog know that I like to put a picture on almost every post, just to give it a bit of variety and so that a picture will show up on Facebook (or wherever else the post is shared). There are four or five of my posts that draw an inordinate amount of image searches, and these searches make up almost the majority of my blog traffic.

It's actually kind of sad in a way.

If I were in the blogging business for fame and fortune, I'd be really upset. However, I'm not (if I were, would it look and sound like this?), so it's not a big issue.

But part of me would like more people to come for the content and not the images.

Oh well. These are the things that are going through my mind as I sit here on a rainy Sunday night. The wife's in the bedroom watching a show and I have my jazz going. I have no work tomorrow because of the Victoria Day holiday.

All is right in the world.

I should be able to find an image for that, shouldn't I?

Book Review - Carthage Must Be Destroyed - by Richard Miles

It's been a while since I've posted a book review here! Or at least a *new* book review, as opposed to revisiting a couple of older ones that I just had never posted here.

For those of you who love ancient history, Carthage Must Be Destroyed is right up your alley. Especially if you're a big fan of studying the Roman Empire (as opposed to being a big fan *of* the Empire, because that would be wrong).

Some of the major series of events in the early Roman Empire are the Punic Wars with Carthage, the Mediterranean kingdom on the northern coast of Africa that rivaled Rome in power. We've read a lot from the Roman side on these wars, eventually ending in the total destruction of the Carthaginian Empire. But what about from the Carthage side? Just how did this city become so great, and such a prominent feature of the Mediterranean landscape?

Richard Miles goes into a lot of detail about Carthage and how it formed, along with it's long and tempestuous relationship with Rome.

My review of the book is now up on Curled Up With a Good Book (actually, it's been up for a while now, but I'm just now getting to post it here).

From the review:

""Carthage must be destroyed" was uttered by Cato the Elder, a Roman statesman and general who fought in the Punic Wars, and is a fitting title for this book—though one that highlights one of the weaknesses of the book as well.

The book jacket promises that this book is a "full scale history" of Carthage. That's not totally accurate. While Miles does convey a great deal of information about how Carthage was formed as a colony of the Phoenicians but ended up becoming greater than its sire, Carthage Must Be Destroyed is almost entirely about Carthage as an empire, not Carthage as a place to live. We read how it became a great empire in itself, with colonies in modern-day Spain and Sicily, and how this eventually forced them to butt heads with the growing Roman influence in the Mediterranean. It's all about foreign affairs, meaning we learn relatively little about what life in Carthage was actually like. This may be due to a lack of sources and thus may not be Miles's fault. Taken as a whole, however, the book does not come as advertised."

That really is the only problem with the book. So many of the sources are Roman, because the ones from Carthage are pretty much lost, that there really isn't a lot about the day to day life in Carthage that Miles can tell us about.

It does give a blow by blow account of the Punic Wars, what Carthage hoped to achieve, and how they ended up on the sharpened point of history, flailing away until they ceased to exist.

This was interesting to me because it was something I knew a little about but never enough. The fact that it was a huge book (and heavy, so if you're carrying it around, you might want to get the Kindle version) just made more to savor.

If you're interested in the subject, it's definitely a book to check out.

Confessing Indiscretions - Always a Good Thing?

(Can you play Footsie on Facebook?)

I was reading one of my favourite blogs last night, Instapundit. (Seriously, even if you're not of the conservative bent, there are often lots of interesting links there that aren't necessarily political).

One of the links that I saw was to an online advice columnist with an interesting dilemma. Dear Wendy is a blog and advice column where people can ask about relationships. This particular one, Wendy was going to let the readers have a go at it instead.

I'm not going to quote the letter she posted for her readers (that would be stealing, and thus another indiscretion I'd have to confess), but I'll give you the gist of it.

Basically, the question is "should you confess to Facebook flirting?" This particular case, the woman had been in an up and down relationship for three years. One particularly nasty patch of their relationship, she found an ex-coworker on Facebook and they exchanged a few flirts. She says she struck up "a little Internet flirting," but she doesn't go into detail. She never met the guy, and nothing physical ever happened.

Now her and the boyfriend are moving in together, and she feels guilty. She's wondering whether she should confess the flirting to her boyfriend, even though she has not talked to the guy since she and her boyfriend's relationship stabilized (though she didn't unfriend him either).

What do you think? Should every transgression, no matter how minor, be confessed to your significant other? Is this even a transgression at all, since they were not exactly together at the time this happened?

Here's how I would have answered it.

I would have to agree with basically every comment that's on that post. This is really nothing to feel guilty about. First, some people are just natural flirts anyway. One commenter mentions the possibility of flirting with the bartender when you're out at the bar with your girlfriends. Should *that* be confessed? No, of course not. It's just a night out, neither one of you thought it meant anything, and it's not like you went home with him.

I don't know if I'd go as far as some commenters did and say that she's looking for a way to sabotage her relationship with her boyfriend, and telling him about this would be one way to do that. That's a bit harsh. However, I do believe that, in this case, confessing would be an inherently selfish act that would not make the situation any better. She may be doing it to assuage her (in my opinion, misguided) guilt, but the only result this can have is to hurt him. A quite possible reaction from him would be "this shouldn't be that big of a deal, but since she's telling me about it, it must be more important to her than it needs to be. I wonder what's up." And then the suspicion would flow.

Did she really want to meet up with this guy but it just never happened? How serious was this flirting? Why is she telling me this?

If you had an affair, it would be a whole other ball of wax. Even a fling, there are conflicting views on whether a one-time occurrence really needs to be confessed. I think, for the most part, it should be, but I think that depends on your relationship.

But harmless flirting?

Seriously, no good can come of this type of confession. If you have to get rid of some misguided sense of guilt over this, talk to your priest or a counselor.

Oh, and definitely unfriend the guy too. Just in case he decides to come calling again.

Moms and Smartphones - in Bed?

(Thanks to Digital Trends)

In these modern times, people and their phones are seldom parted. Sometimes, prying the smartphone out of somebody's hand is like trying to get a rattle away from a baby.

You'd think that there were some areas where the phone might be put away, though. Wouldn't you? I don't know, like maybe taking a shower. I'm waiting for the first waterproof smartphone so you can access Facebook or Twitter while you clean yourself (Congressmen will not be allowed these phones).

Another area that you would think would be off-limits for phone use would be sex.

But to 12% of "Millenial Moms" (i.e. moms aged 18-35), you would be totally wrong. In fact, you would be so wrong that they would look at you and wonder what you've been smoking.

Yes, according to a Meredith's Parenting Network study (h/t: Yahoo News), 12% of these Millenial Moms admit to using their smartphones while having sex.

I will pause here while you picture that.

I know I want to see that Facebook status update!

This just seems so many kinds of wrong to me, though the Yahoo story does make a good point. The study didn't delve too deeply into what they use the phones for. Smartphones nowadays do have lots of interesting apps and stuff, especially things like cameras and the like. Maybe she's checking to see how many calories she's burning. You know there's an app for that!

Can this account for the 12%?

Or maybe the guy's just boring?

If so, he should take heart. According to Digital Trends, where I found the above picture, 33% of Americans prefer their smartphones to sex. So at least these women don't fall into that category! They just need a little distraction. So don't be alarmed if you hear the WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! of an Angry Bird. She's just having her own fun while you're at it.

It's not you. It's them. Those birds.

I really don't know what to make of this story. It just kind of boggles the mind, along with those surveys years ago that talked about eating during sex.

Really?

Any of you get any bright ideas, I'm unfollowing you on Twitter. I will have no choice.

The rest of the stats in the survey are nowhere near as interesting (or fun). A full 21% of these moms admit to using their phone in the bathroom. More than 80% of them are on Facebook, yet 57% consider it a waste of time.

You know, the usual stats.

So let's get back to the sex.

Really? I mean I just can't...

Really?

I tell you, those cameras had better be getting a workout.

The Modern Age of Chivalry

When I was doing last Sunday's post on hugs, I went looking for a picture that fit what I was trying to say perfectly. I found one from an article about hugs on a site called "Hall of the Black Dragon," an online men's magazine that bills itself as the "Online Magazine for the Modern Gentleman."

I was a bit intrigued and decided to browse some of the articles after I was done with that post. It's your typical men's magazine, talking about dating life, relationships, things like that. Even if I were single, I don't know if I would try to live my life like many of the articles suggest.

But one article that I stumbled upon caught my eye a bit. Entitled "A Guide to Being Chivalrous in This Modern Age," it spoke to me because I do picture myself trying to be at least somewhat chivalrous even in these modern times. Within reason, of course. Obviously, things have changed a lot since the original age of chivalry, and you have to make allowances for that. But I don't think there's anything wrong with a bit of chivalry.

The article makes the point that there are basically four kinds of responses to this kind of behaviour, again adopting a style that I wouldn't necessarily choose, but it does get the point across. I'm going to tell you a bit about the article itself before getting into my feelings, so the list below is straight from the article (though not quoted).

These responses are:

1) Demanding it: This type of woman expects to be treated like they're precious, and expects it so much that they don't even bother acknowledging it. You won't get a thank you if you hold a door open for her.

2) Suspicious of it: This woman will look at you funny when you do something for her, wondering what your motive is. There's no way you're doing it just out of the goodness of your heart.

3) Offended by it: How dare you even think that she needs you to open a door for her!

4) Loves it: The only one of the four that makes being chivalrous feel worthwhile. This one doesn't expect it but is very happy to accept it when they do get it. They also don't mind if you do it. She is just generally appreciative that you would even think to do this for her.

Ok, so that's what the article says. It also says that basically it's up to guys to choose how they want to act and not to worry about the reaction they're going to get if they do decide to be chivalrous. If you're going to do it, enjoy the ones who accept it and don't worry about the ones who act weird about it.

We've talked about this sort of thing before, in my "Sexist Pig" post, but I think it bears revisiting here. I like to be considerate and good manners are always a must. Some of those things, the suspicious or offended ladies above would probably not like. The thing is, I wouldn't feel like I'm being myself if I didn't act that way. It's just the way I am. I would never take it to the extent where the woman would feel belittled, unless she's one who feels belittled if a man does anything nice for her. But I don't see anything wrong with just a bit of chivalry.

The world is already a rough place. Why not try to make it a little better by just being courteous? The relationship terrain between men and women is already littered with mines. I guess some would say attempting any sort of chivalry just adds another mine to the ground.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

The true chivalrous man is never doing any of this because he feels that the woman can't do something for herself. And he's also not afraid to realize that sometimes a woman is going to do the same for him. Unlike back in Medieval times, that's certainly to be expected too. I don't know how many times a woman has helped me out in situations where I really could use a hand.

So yes. I do believe it's possible to be chivalrous in this day and age. Yes, it's sort of a modified chivalry from what we remember from history (no wearing something the lady gives you when you go out for a joust, to name one example). But it's chivalry nonetheless. And sure, some women aren't going to like it.

But the ones who do like it, and react appropriately, make all of those other ones worth it.

The Hug Effect

(Thanks to Hall of the Black Dragon)

There is something magical about a hug. It's very hard to explain what that magical effect is, I guess much like most emotional things.

Sure, scientists have probably explained it in scientific terms that take all of the beauty and romance out of it. So I'm not going to go look for that.

Instead, I just want to talk about it from a feeling point of view.

When you're feeling a bit low, it's a wonder how just somebody coming over and giving you a hug will all of a sudden totally lift your spirits out of that funk that you're in. Or, if it doesn't do that, it may at least make you feel more able to deal with the emotional stress that you're feeling right at that moment. It's that physical aspect of touch, there's just something about it. It adds a layer of intimacy, I think, that shows that somebody really cares about you and your well-being.

Of course, nothing is better than a hug (and other things, obviously) between two people who truly love one another and want to spend the rest of their lives together. Romantic love can produce some wonderful hugs where the entire body is pressed together full-length, with both bodies almost melting into each other. Yes, those are definitely special.

But what about outside of a romantic relationship? Those hugs can be pretty damned special too, in their own way. While there is no full-body melding, there is definitely contact. Whether it's one of those "safe" hugs where you touch each other as little as possible, or even a closer hug where your bodies are pressed together (just not as intimately as a romantic hug), both can satisfy a need that we as humans have. That need for some kind of physical representation that somebody cares. I think it's something the world needs more of.

There are always gender issues that crop up, of course. Men generally don't hug other men unless extreme circumstances seem to warrant it. A tremendously sad occasion like attending a funeral, or a very happy one like scoring the Stanley Cup-winning goal. Just a general pick-me-up, though? A conversation between two guys about something that's bothering one of them? There will most likely be no hug there. But women do it all the time.

And for mixed-gender friendships, there's always that fine dance of finding the comfort zone for both parties. Is he going to see this as more than just a friendly hug? Is she going to think I want to move this further than just friendship? Or maybe you're just not a believer in hugging somebody of the opposite gender who isn't married to you or in a relationship with you.

All of those considerations have to be dealt with. But after they are, the resulting hugs can be glorious. Not only because of the resulting feeling they can give you, but because it shows an utter trust in you that they are sharing. Giving somebody a hug, or allowing them to hug you, opens up a vulnerability in you because you're letting that person even more into your emotional presence. Sure, you may have talked a lot, and maybe even about some very personal things. But now you're allowing them into your private space. The space you keep for people you really care about. Yes, you're pretty sure the other person feels the same way or you wouldn't be doing it.

But it's still a vulnerability.

Of course, some people don't even bother with those considerations and totally surprise you, hugging you out of the blue. Like meeting somebody's mother for the first time and she proceeds to give you a hug when you take your leave. Wonderful surprises indeed.

Or perhaps you've become friends with somebody online, and so you've already moved past all of that. I know a few women online where, if and when we ever meet, I'm in for the hug of my life, I'm sure.

It's not just hugs, either, though they are the culmination of all of this, that Holy Grail that you finally reach where the person's comfort level is to the point of being able to hug you.

Sometimes it's just a touch. Some people are naturally touchy people, and you can usually tell that. They'll touch your arm or shoulder when they're talking to you. While I'm not saying it doesn't mean anything, it isn't quite in the same league. I'm sure even these people will not touch some people if they get a bad vibe off of them or something.

But not that many people are, in this age where we take a stranglehold on our personal space and try not to let anybody into it except a select few. Many of us don't like being touched, and that also translates into not liking to touch other people. Or maybe that's a bit too extreme and you just don't habitually do it. You don't fear it or anything, but it's just not something you do.

There are friends of mine who I remember the first time they actually touched me. It may have just been a light slap on the arm or a touch on the shoulder or whatever. And it may have just been in the flow of a conversation, perhaps even in a group conversation.

But it still struck me in a marvelous way. What it said to me is that this person is actually comfortable enough with me to touch me. That this person does care about me. It's an intimacy (not a romantic intimacy, but an intimacy nonetheless) that they have finally decided to share with you. And if it comes in the middle of a conversation or in some other off-hand manner, it demonstrates that this comfortableness is honestly being felt and not just calculated (like some people will touch you on the arm or shoulder if they are trying to convince you to do something, to name one example). They touched you without even thinking about it.

And it feels good.

It's even better when you are good enough friends that they just realize when you might need a hug. No questions asked, no request needed.

Those are the friendships to cherish.

Podcast Stuff - Ep 35 of Down the Hall

We all know what the question of the day is. The one that's been eating you up for the last two weeks.

No, it's not whether or not Community would be renewed for a fourth season, though the fact that it was (or at least for a partial season) is very good news indeed.

I know you were holding your breath to find out whose theme song would be chosen for the new Down the Hall theme! Would I go down in flames, crying in my beer, or would I be able to lord my victory over my co-hosts for years to come?

You'll just have to listen to Episode 35 to find out.

That's not the only thing in this episode, however. Otherwise, it really wouldn't be much of a podcast. I talked to a graduate from the MET program about her time in it and how she's using what she learned to form a Virtual Learning Commons at the college where she works. It's a really great interview (because of her, as I wouldn't toot my own horn that way :P) and it has a lot of great information for those who may be thinking about applying for the program.

Secondly, take a look at the cool new picture that's on the player for the podcast on the blog page I linked to above. Notice a different picture? Yes, we had to update our photos to include Fiona in them, and I think they all turned out great. The avatar picture is on the player, but you need to go to our Libsyn page to see our brand new banner. I think that picture is marvelous.

Also, while you're doing things for me/us, why not go to our Facebook page and "like" us? It's just the click of a button. Doesn't take any energy at all. You probably have enough energy even if you're checking this right after you got out of bed. Assuming, of course, that my blog is the first thing you check when you get up.

It is, isn't it?

Anyway, let us know what you think!

Like Something on Facebook? You Could Get Fired

Oh, how powerful Facebook has become. We all know that doing something stupid and then posting a picture of it on Facebook may affect your future job aspirations. Or even your current ones if you call in sick and then post photos of you living it up on the beach.

The Onion recently did a hilarious piece on how, due to Facebook and other social media, every conceivable Presidential candidate for the 2040 election is already unelectable due to what they've posted on social media sites.

But can you really get fired for just pushing that little "Like" button on a Facebook page, blog, or whatever?

Apparently you can.

A judge in Virginia has recently ruled that "Liking" something on Facebook is not protected free speech. (h/t: CNET)

That's right. If you "Like" something on Facebook that goes counter to your boss or company philosophy or whatever, this judge is saying you have no legal recourse if they fire you for it. You can say "I like stewed clams" and you're fine. But if you find a Facebook page extolling the virtues of stewed clams and click that little button, your clam-hating boss can fire you for it.

This came up when six workers in the sheriff's office in Virginia "Liked" Sheriff B.J. Roberts' opponent in his re-election bid in 2009.

Understandably miffed, he let them all go. The workers sued, and believe it or not, Roberts has won the case. Roberts says that they were fired for other reasons, but the basis of their suit was that their First Amendment rights had been violated. Judge Raymond A. Jackson said "Whoa, Nelly! Hold on a minute."

Actually, he didn't say that (but wouldn't that be funny?)

This is a bit more accurate:

"While public employees are allowed to speak as citizens on matters of public concern, Judge Raymond A. Jackson of Federal District Court ruled that clicking the “like” button did not amount to expressive speech. In other words, it was not the same as actually writing out a message and posting it on the site."

I really find this offensive, even though I'm not a big fan of the "Like" button anyway (I have used it, obviously, but still don't really care for it).

Saying "I like podcasts" is expressing an opinion that you like podcasts. Clicking the "Like" button on a podcast page is expressing an opinion that you like podcasts.

How are they any different? They're both opinions, and last I looked, you're free to have an opinion and give that opinion to anybody else (whether they actually want it or not is a different story).

Obviously, this will get appealed to a higher level, and somebody much higher on the judge food chain than Jackson is going to be making a final decision on this topic. Maybe even the Supreme Court?

Whatever the case, though, I can't believe that the expressing of *any* opinion can be considered "not protected" as free speech. I'm not one to overreact (though this was me and some friends and co-workers when the store ran out of Mountain Dew one time)...

(Thanks to Tennessee Guerilla Women)

but I think this opens the door to some place that we as a society don't want to go. When one opinion is suppressed, no matter what manner that opinion is expressed, where does it end? (Obviously I'm not including ways that are actually against the law, like spray-painting your opinion on your local official's forehead or something)

Next do they rule that your opinion isn't protected because you didn't put it on proper 3x5 index cards and present it on the proper type of soapbox on the street corner?

I really hope this ruling gets overturned.

Are You Not Sure if You're Ugly?

Those of us who don't happen to know if we would terrorize small children just by looking at them (due to the absence of small children on whom to test the hypothesis) used to just have to guess. There was no empirical way to determine just how ugly we were.

We'd walk around, forever in a funk, unsure whether the reason women backed away from us slowly was because we have faces that could stop clocks or whether it was because of the two liters of cologne that we were wearing.

Damn it, there should be something out there to help us! Friends can be unreliable. I don't expect any of my friends to come up to me and say "Dave, you know I hate to tell you this, and you know I'm your friend and everything, right? Well, I just have to tell you that...well...your face sort of...makes me want to hurl." Though I have wondered why they've all started wearing dark glasses when they're around me.

Do you think that's a sign?

Anyway, for those of us who are still unsure, Dapper Gentlemen has come to our rescue. They have an iPhone app that has hit it big recently called Ugly Meter. It's not a brand new app, but they recently came out with a Pro version (for those who are professionally ugly?) and it was featured on the Howard Stern show. After that, it became the second most-downloaded app after Angry Birds (nothing can dethrone the birds!).

This app will scan your face, and weigh you on a scale of 1 (super-hot) to 10 (should hide away in shame), giving you compliments or insults depending on your rating.

But does it truly work?


Apparently not all that well, considering that while it gave David Cameron a 7 rating ("If ugliness were bricks, you'd be the Great Wall of China") it gave Brad Pitt an 8 ("You could walk through a haunted house and come out with a paycheck"). Really? Maybe Brad's picture was just having a bad day.

Parents are, of course, worried about kids using this app to bully other kids, though Dapper Gentlemen says that the app is just intended to be "good fun." Personally, I wouldn't worry about it if I were a parent. If some kid is bullying your child about their looks, they're already doing it. An iPhone app isn't going to make it any worse.

Besides, if the app says that a kid is an 8, he can loudly proclaim "I look like Brad Pitt!"

Really, that's all you need to know if you're worried about somebody with personal self-image issues stumbling upon this app and unfortunately having their bad feelings about themselves reinforced. If it thinks Brad Pitt is ugly (I'm not a Pitt fan, but I can admit that he is a handsome slab of meat), then anybody else who uses it shouldn't incorporate it into their own self-image.

The most outrageous thing about this app isn't self-image issues.

It's that it costs five bucks to get it! The original Ugly Meter cost 99 cents.

What do you get for that extra four dollars?

Beauty tips?

Twitter is Becoming Even More of a Force

(Thanks to The Dutiee Blog)

Many people follow Twitter to keep up on the lives of some of their favourite celebrities, or to network with others in their chosen field. I maintain a Twitter account for our office that is becoming well-known in the field of educational technology. It's a great way to stay informed on a whole variety of subjects.

It really came into its own during the Iranian Green Revolution of 2009, where the Iranian government blocked mobile phone feeds and other avenues of access to try and restrict what got out of the country. But they couldn't block Twitter without blocking the Internet totally, and Twitter became the place to get a lot of information out about the protests, the violence, the government crack-down, and all of that. I think a lot of people gained a new respect for Twitter after that.

There have been other examples of Twitter becoming prominent in the news cycle, of course. Just ask former Congressman Anthony Weiner.

However, it was only recently where an example came up that showed Twitter to be not only an outlet for the news, but also as a driving force behind some of it. In this case, if you don't follow Twitter, or the blogs that referenced it, you probably didn't hear about it.

I'm not going to get into a political debate in this post, but the example does involve politics. The Obama campaign has been making hay with a Mitt Romney family trip many years ago where the carrier containing the family dog was tied to the roof of the car. The campaign has noticed that whenever this story is brought up, Romney's negative ratings go up. It's pure gold, baby!

But Jim Treacher from the Daily Caller actually read The Audacity of Hope, one of Obama's memoirs, and noticed a line in there that struck him. It was about a time as a child when Obama was living with his stepfather in Indonesia.

"With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy)."

Yes, you read that right. Obama ate dog meat. And didn't seem to mind it.

As soon as Treacher tweeted this, Twitter went on a rampage. Numerous conservative pundits and just regular people on Twitter started joking about it. The hashtag "#ObamaEatsDogs" became so prominent over the next few days that it actually ended up making the ABC news web site among other news outlets. Many "traditional" news outlets ignored it, of course (it didn't make any of the televised news shows, for example. Just perhaps their web sites, like ABC's). If you get your news from the New York Times and that's it, you've still never heard of this (until now, I guess, since you're reading my post).

It reached the point where some Obama staffers were actually fighting this out on Twitter with the other side, trying to keep the Romney meme alive while still trying to dismiss the Obama meme.

It reached so much prominence that Jimmy Kimmel made some jokes about it at the White House Correspondents Dinner last weekend. In fact, Obama himself made three jokes about it in his presentation there.

Can you believe that? Obama himself was making jokes about something that started on Twitter. There were some in the audience, who don't follow Twitter or many online blogs, who only get their news from "regular" news outlets, who turned to their compatriots and asked "why is the President joking about eating dogs?" They'd never heard of this before.

I don't bring this up to make political hay. You know I'm a conservative. Many of you out there are liberals. You know we disagree on a lot politically.

However, the reason I'm bringing this up is because this meme that rose to such prominence that even the President himself is joking about it began on Twitter and stayed online for the most part. In fact, many news outlets that covered the Correspondents Dinner didn't even mention the dog jokes.

Would you have thought something like that was possible even just a few years ago? For a story that reaches the national consciousness to have begun on Twitter?

Even more of a reason to at least know about Twitter, even if you don't have the inclination or the time to actually use it much.

Because it too can become a driving force behind the news.

Getting Into Bars - Show Me Some Facebook

(Thanks to Moncton Blogger)

Would you rather hear that rather than "show me some ID?" Or do you see that as a massive invasion of privacy?

Believe it or not, some clubs in the UK are having their bouncers check your Facebook account on your phone rather than (or sometimes in addition to!) your driver's license.

According to the BBC, "Some bouncers have been demanding people hand over their smartphones so they can check Facebook accounts...". This is ostensibly to verify their age. (h/t: Boingboing)

Never mind the fact that this means that you always have to have an Internet-capable phone with you whenever you go out (believe it or not, some people *still* cling to the idea of just having a phone that's only a phone, though maybe that doesn't apply to people young enough to be carded in the first place).

The most important thing is that this can conceivably be a massive invasion of privacy. I'm just looking at my Facebook account on my phone right now (yes, believe it or not, I actually do research for some of these posts!), and my "About" section has my place of employment, Education, and a bunch of other information in addition to my birthday on it. Do I really want some bouncer at some night club to be looking at all of that? I don't think so! It's none of their business where I work, and if they scroll down enough, there's a phone number there too. Assuming you put it in there, of course. But really, how many young socialites are not going to have their numbers on their Facebook accounts, even if they're on their privately? Probably not many of them.

Of course, the night clubs and bouncers defending this practice fall back on that old canard "If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?" That reasoning is completely specious because it misses the point. Nobody should have to present any part of their private lives to a bouncer just to get into a club. While Facebook is social media, the user chooses who to share that information with. Thus, it is private.

There is one other reason why this is the stupidest policy I've seen in a while for similar situations.

People lie.

Yes, fake IDs exist, and they are getting better all the time. "Chris, a bar owner from Folkestone, told Newsbeat that convincing fake ID was easy to get - and often very hard for door staff to spot."

That may be, but people lie on Facebook much more often than they get fake IDs. The minimum age for a Facebook account is fourteen.

Do you know how many 10-13 year-old kids there are on Facebook? A lot. Many of them with their parents' permission. In other words, you can put any old year down for a "birth date" when you create a Facebook account.

So an 18-year-old girl who wants to get into a club where she's required to show her Facebook account on her phone to the bouncer to verify ID may very well have a Facebook account that shows she's 19 (the drinking age up here in Canada).

Chris in the article says "Checking phones with consent is at least a more certain way." Tell me again how checking Facebook accounts is more certain when they can lie about their age?

Thankfully, there are some people with morals and a brain in the industry.

However, Paul Martin-Beades, the director of Akira Training, which trains about 250 door staff a year, said checking Facebook accounts was unacceptable.

He said all staff approved by the Security Industry Authority (SIA) are taught about the law and human rights and would know it was wrong.

"Only the people involved can say why they do this but they would never have been taught to do it."

This policy is outrageous in its privacy concerns but it's also stupid because it's actually easier to circumvent than the ID requirement.

Hopefully they'll wise up and shelve this policy quickly.

Podcast Stuff - Ep 34 of Down the Hall

There are important things going on in this week's episode of Down the Hall. The most important is that we need you to help us choose our theme song! We introduce Fiona Czeschel to the show (another great co-worker of mine, I'm so lucky to be blessed with so many wonderful people around me) and we've decided, as part of our spring cleaning, to update the theme song.

Each host has chosen a song that we'd like to use for our theme. But only one can win, so we want you to help us decide. Even if you don't listen to the episode (and c'mon, you know you want to) because you don't have time or something (Dawnie, this means you!), we'd still love it if you voted for our song. As I said on Facebook yesterday, I won't even hold it against you if you don't choose mine (not that we can tell who voted for what anyway).

Here's the link to the episode.

I suppose you probably want some educational content along with all this frivolity? Well, we've got it. I talked to Dr. Stuart Poyntz of Simon Fraser University, who's also teaching in the Recurring Questions in Technology summer institute that we're holding (ta da!) this Summer. He talks about the importance of media literacy with children, and how it's imperative that we teach our kids how to discern what's good and what's bad, to evaluate and discard media that isn't relevant to them. We also talk about children and technology.

I found it a fascinating discussion, and I know you will too.

And hey, while you're at it, why not go over to our Facebook page and "like" us. Just click on the little "like" button at the top of the page.

Love Analytics

(Thanks to Cherry-Bam)

Is it possible to quantify love?

Not really, as love is an emotion, a feeling that we give to other people and share it in return.

However, there are some things that we can look at in our lives and see just how much love we have coming back toward us. And I don't just mean romantic love, but just love in general.

This thought was sparked by a comment thread on Facebook today, and I thought about it a lot on my way home from work. I won't name the person involved, though they will, of course, recognize it and can out themselves if they want. (I know it's not grammatically correct, but I'm going to say "they" throughout this post just to keep the person anonymous).

Anyway, this person does the usual Facebook thing and posts status updates on either how they're doing or what they're up to, or just a general thought or two that passed through their head. This particular one was about being sick. I left a "get well soon" type comment and when I returned to it after a few more replies, I said that their comment threads are so long all the time, which must mean that they're really loved. They responded with yes, this particular thread was making them feel very loved and that they have some beautiful people in their life.

And it got me to thinking, putting together some other things that have come up recently. Sometimes these things come up completely out of the blue. You're going on your normal way, acting like you always act, being friends with someone, interacting with them, and then WHAM! Out of the blue they really tell you how much they value your friendship and your ability to listen or what have you.

These things start to add up and you realize just how loved and valued you really are. And to somebody who has self-doubts about who they are and what they bring to the world, that can be the biggest pick-me-up ever.

It almost becomes a catalog in your mind, where you can go back and page through when somebody said that you were important to them, or showed you that you're important to them by doing something for you. You think back when your chips are down a bit and realize that yes, you do have value to people. You are worthy. Other people do care about you.

Of course, this feeling should always be around in a marriage or romantic relationship, where these thoughts and feelings are shared and demonstrated often. If that doesn't happen, then it's not a very healthy relationship.

But getting it from friends, especially when you're not expecting it, can really give you a boost for your day. It can be something as simple as "I'm really glad you're doing this, because now it's become fun for me again," or "thank you for that. I've gained a new perspective that I didn't have before because of something you said."

I'm not saying that if you don't get this often, your friendships are not good (though I would suggest that, if you haven't made a friend feel good about something recently, you might want to think about it). Again, you can't quantify friendship and love, and you certainly can't say "Only two friends have told me they love me this month, while she has six friends who have said the same thing. She must be a better person than I am."

I would never say that, because it's not true.

I'm just speaking to the power that love can bring. It has the ability to boost you up out of a bad mental funk, to make you feel better when you feel down about something, to feel better about a friendship where you're not sure about the status of it. You feel much friendly love and affection for that person. Do they share it? And then, in the course of some conversation or other, they say or show that yes, they do share it.

I guess the ultimate answer is that there is no way to analyze and quantify how loved you are.

But you know it when you feel it.