WooBlog.com

I try. I really do. I’ve always wanted, and still want, to keep Woo Blog a happy, positive and fun blog.

But when Facebook gives you no customer service or interactive help section, you need some place to rant :/, and sadly that always ends up being my blog. So forgive me for the Facebook posts, but the privacy issues and news I come across regarding the social network site can just be too shocking to ignore. And it just gets more frustrating the more I see Facebook downplay everything.

This post is a summary of different Facebook issues I’ve come across in the past week:

1. Become Private, It’s Easy. Just Follow These 100 Steps.

Below is a video I posted recently. I created a new Facebook account and then recorded an entire video showing how long and how many confusing steps I had to take to privatize my account (since new profiles are defaulted to “public”. While doing the video, I even found another privacy setting that was practically hidden in the last tab of the account settings!!! You’ll catch it at the end.

2. “Dumb F*cks”

This is shocking, yet not surprising… to me, at least. As Facebook advances to publicize our privacy more and more, Zuckerberg laughs at those that share so much information willingly on the network.

A controversial instant message conversation between Zuckerberg and friend in the beginning of Facebook has been circulating the net:

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

Zuck: Just ask.

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How’d you manage that one?

Zuck: People just submitted it.

Zuck: I don’t know why.

Zuck: They “trust me”

Zuck: Dumb f*cks.

But isn’t he the one who is encouraging people to share more, to not be afraid of the end of privacy?

3. Inspired By A True Life Story

David Fincher, of Fight Club, is filming a movie based on Ben Mezrich’s novel, “Accidental Millionaires”. Of course, one of the characters is a dramatized version of Zuckerberg, even quoting the above conversation. Zuckerberg is apparently appalled at the negativity he is portrayed in. Really, Mark? You can’t imagine how they could’ve created that character based off of you?

4. The Facebook Evolution

Want to see a chart that illustrates your privacy diminishing over the past five years? Check it out here.

5. Canada, Blame Facebook

I love this. You know how if you delete your account, Facebook keeps all of your information (which I think they do to keep their high number of profiles)? Well, that breaches Canada laws.

6. Teenage Murdered

I just saw this . Nona Belomesoff, a teenager, was murdered by Christopher James Dannevig, someone who created a fake profile to befriend Nona and take advantage of her passion on animal welfare. Yes, yes, I know that Facebook isn’t to blame, but this is just another reason why Facebook should turn to teach about how important privacy is to protect oneself instead of being so casual and anti towards it and encouraging people to share info with others they don’t know.

Okay, that is enough for now. There is so much more to share, but you get my point. Overall, I like Facebook. I really do. It’s a great way to keep in touch with families and old friends, as well as stay connected with people I’ve worked with. I know there are a lot of confusing privacy settings, but do check them frequently and make sure that you are not public enough for strangers to know what you look like, your name, where you live, your number, etc.

This blog isn’t really a place for me to rant about current issues and politics (unless it’s Facebook-related), but heck, I have plenty of time right now. I keep coming across something that sounds pretty ridiculous when you look into it yet isn’t talked about enough: restaurants charging for water.

No Free Tap Water

I remember when it became mandatory for restaurants in southern California to stop handing out glasses of water to customers unless it was asked for. But to now charge for tap water? People report charges of between $.10 up to $1.00. I’ve been to a couple places that charged $.50.

I just asked a couple people near me if they have ever seen this, and they were surprised to hear it even happened. They said they’ve never seen it, but then again, they said they could’ve been charged it before and not have noticed. With the places I have gone to, our server never tells us that the water will be charged to us; we just have to catch it in the fine print somewhere on the menu.

A user at Chowhound brings up the issue on the site’s messageboard: a restaurant not offering any kind of free tap water. The poster also says, “I asked for a glass of tap water and was told by the cashier that they didn’t offer water from the tap, but that I could buy it. I thought there was a law that required restaurants to offer tap water. I mean, they clean their dishes with it.”

As shocking as it sounds to many, there isn’t a law that gives customers the right to free water. Remember those New York Starbucks employees that charged ambulance workers $130 for water during the 9/11 tragedy? The company only refunded the money and apologized after those workers went through many hoops and obstacles of unanswered calls and letters and after the story became widely publicized in the media. But, the company was only reprimanded. No one was arrested because they charged.

Why Charge?

Yet “snort”, the Chowhound user, makes another good point that the restaurant must have tap water, since I’m sure they don’t clean dishes with bottled water, and the place just refuses to serve it.

So why charge? I read that some places charge $.10, but it’s really more for the cup you use. But what motivates restaurants to charge $.50 or $1.00 to drink tap water in their own restaurant? Because it’s filtered?

Depending on population and the place, a restaurant can get on average between 100-200 customers a day. If each one of them ordered water and were charged $.50, that is about $50 to $100 going back to the restaurant each day. Is that really all going toward the expense of having filtered water?

It all sounds ridiculous on one hand. But on the other, maybe we shouldn’t be drinking tap water. And maybe knowing that we are paying for the water will keep us from wasting it or ordering it out of habit without any want or need.

Do we have a right to tap or filtered tap water? And as long as many restaurants, cafes, and chains are offering free water, should others not be charging? Are they charging to encourage us to not waste or are they profiting from this? Should there be a limit to how much a restaurant can charge?

Restaurants use a lot of water, I understand that. They wash dishes, serve glass waters, and boil water. Dave Lieberman of OC Weekly makes a good point in saying that restaurants are “certainly allowed to recuperate their costs”. I just think there should be some kind of limit as to how much they can charge. In other words, what determines whether to charge $.10 per glass or $1.00 per glass?

Someone else just told me now that he was charged $14 for bottled water at J.J.’s steakhouse in Pasadena. When asking for regular tap water, they said they didn’t serve that there.

I understand the argument that restaurants need to cover the costs of water and filtration, but fancy frou-frou $14 bottled waters is a bit over the edge. So it’s not illegal to charge for water or refuse to serve tap water. It may just drive customers away (I don’t return to the two places that charged me for water), but it’s what they’re allowed to do.

More on this topic:
-Charging tap water for good
-“Check! (Carefully!)”: More reports of crazy charges, including an extra $2.50 for ice added to a cocktail
-Receipt showing being charged $.25/glass of water

A mistake I always make when I go to The Grove is walking into Anthropologie “for fun”. Then it turns into walking around the non-sale sections “for fun”, then trying on a dress “for fun”, and then buying it “for fun” and walking out, much shorter on money – not fun.

I did happen to fall in love with this elephant candle holder (and you know how I love elephants!), which was a bit easy to pass over since it was $48!

I saw on Anthropologie’s site that they also have matching elephant salt and pepper shakers:

Maybe I should start working at Anthroplogie? What are their employee discounts like? Can I find a potter who can make me this for much cheaper? *sigh*

With the whole “hype” of the iPad, a couple new lines of products seem to have fallen under the radar. But they’ve also been recently brought to stores: new Macbook Pro laptops and Adobe CS5.

The New MacBook Pro Family

The new Macbook Pros (starting at $1199) have a faster processor (supposedly twice as fast as before), longer battery life, faster graphics, and a lighter, thinner, and more durable enclosure that comes from one piece of aluminum. You can also have up to 2.66Ghz of speed, with also a “Turbo Boost” of up to 3.33GHz (it would be more fun to see a big red button labeled, “Turbo Boost!” to push when I need more speed).

There is up to 8GB of memory and hard-drive space up to 500GB. I find this very hard to believe as I type on my 2006 MacBook Pro with 2GB of memory and 80GB of space. This laptop sounds insane.

At first glance, the battery being built in seems to be a downside. But apparently you can have up to 1000 recharges (the defective battery that came with my laptop only had a lifespan of about 340 recharges) and it’s supposedly more environmentally friendly. Having a built-in battery allows the laptop to have more space where a removeable battery infrastructure would usually exist, which allows for a bigger battery and lighter weight. Not to mention, I’m sure this’ll do wonders for Apple considering their horrible reputation in batteries and that MacBook owners will be forced to bring in their laptop for servicing a battery. Oh, heck, I still had to come in to the store couple weeks ago and spend $130 for a new battery for my laptop.

Adobe CS5 Master Collection

Oooo, ahhhh. Adobe has also released a new product line: CS5. Adobe brings new tools for design, web, and production. All I ‘knows’ is that the last box in that picture above, the Master Collectionn, is a $2600 box.

There are many new things this brings to the Adobe CS family, but I’ll point out the few that stick out to me. In the new Adobe Flash Catalyst, it is even more WYSIWYG-designer friendly (no coding). The other is that Premiere CS5 is more friendly to tapeless media (RED, DSLR, P2, etc.).

I think the big changes are in the tools, but nothing jumps out as new. Is it worth the $2600 for a couple CD-roms? I admit I don’t use the entire collection of CS software; I mainly use Photoshop. There are some cool new painting effects that would be great for gifted artists who are not big in working with computers to pick up a Wacom tablet and just do what they’ve always done. Everything else in Photoshop Extended seems to be about better organization, finer-tuned tools, and quicker and more efficient workflow. Adobe already has a lot of compatibility with 3D already, but is it jumping too early with CS5? After all the 3D televisions and glasses and movies and TV shows and broadcasts to come this year, think of all the more things Adobe can do to adapt to it all.

I have a feeling that someday I will be telling my kids, “Back in my day, we didn’t have Adobe CS. Back in the 5.0 days, we didn’t have ‘Blending Options’ and a ‘Filter Gallery’. And back in my day, we didn’t have Wacom tablets and touchscreen holograms.” I am still hugging my Photoshop CS4 and telling Adobe, “I’m good, I’m good.”

As I was washing dishes and cleaning up from our Sunday brunch we had today, I was finishing up Radiolab’s latest broadcast, “Lucy”. (Radiolab is a New York public radio show that provides free podcasts in the style of This American Life, and is distributed by WNYC and NPR.)

Beginning to write this blog entry makes me want to tell the entire story and all my favorite moments. But I really recommend that you go to Radiolab’s page right now and download or stream this broadcast from this page. Yes, it’s free.

It’s the famous story of the chimp, Lucy, who was raised by humans since she was just a couple days old. It was a study raising the question if two species can co-exist together and communicate with each other. Not only did Lucy learn 140 signs in the American Sign Language, she learned to brew tea for guests, liked to look through magazines, became attracted to male humans, and raised a kitten.

This photo was taken when Janis reunited with Lucy on the primitive island, shortly before Lucy walked off and was never seen again.

The other fascinating part about this broadcast is the story of bonobos, specifically one named Kanzi, who was raised in a similar way to Lucy but with his maternal parent. He learned over 600 signs, began to understood verbal sentences and was even able to speak back in English.

So do yourself a favor, download this podcast, and check out the video and links below. If you like this story, you should definitely check out Radiolab’s other podcasts. They are all available for free off of iTunes, but do consider donating them something.

Wikipedia entry on Lucy

Wikipedia entry on Kanzi

This is written in response to a BBC article  by Jonathan Fildes, “Google admits Buzz social network testing flaws”.

So I wasn’t the only one unhappy with the Google Buzz when it launched in my account. Many people weren’t happy with the default-public status and little privacy control. In fact, it was “tens of millions” that were unhappy.

Don’t worry, people, Google is to the rescue. My only question, why didn’t they see this coming considering how SIMPLE the Buzz turned out to be? Because privacy just isn’t in the top of any company’s priority list anymore.

One of the things that I don’t think Google thought out is that people don’t just use email with friends and family, but for work and everything else. Why would you want to socialize with all of them online?

People also didn’t like that the list of friends automatically appeared public to other followers. In the BBC news article, it says, “But privacy experts immediately pointed out this could cause problems for journalists, businesses, or even people having an illicit affair.”

Thank you, privacy experts, for being so considerate of those being in illicit affairs.

Google also picked up on the hint that people didn’t want Buzz to be involved with their Gmail. But I understand when Google said they just wanted the Buzz to be easily accessible to people.

With all that said, I really do appreciate the fact that Google has repeatedly apologized over this and are working on it right now to make it what the users want. Why can’t Facebook do the same?!

JANUARY 19, 2010:

*UPDATE: This morning I drove by Lankershim. A day after the protest, the sidewalk and bushes were lined with coffee cups, wet paper signs, plastic bags, and other trash … still.

JANUARY 18, 2010:

Went out to check out the Conan protest at Universal.

I didn’t go down the whole Lankershim street, but saw this at just the corner of Gate 2:

(PS: I’m all for Conan in this matter, but the embarrassing part is that NBC is much more environmentally-friendly than this.)

Mark Zuckerberg, a couple days ago in a live online-streamed video, told the audience that he believes that online privacy is coming to an end, and he observed that from what is the “social norm”.

Exposing what was once private and making new profiles default to public information, Zuckerberg clearly fails to see the dangers this could lead to. Yes, there are many things that don’t seem private anymore, but even still with blogging and websites and social networking, what is put out there is still decided by the poster. There are still many things that people wish to keep private that Facebook won’t give you a choice on.

I wish there was some group that could regulate these things with start-ups that reach a certain amount of users. Yes, I use Facebook. Most people I know are on it, so it’s right now the quickest way to keep people updated. I think when a site becomes so popular with hundreds of millions of users, the company needs to be extra careful. They don’t see your account as one unique profile that contains public and personal things. They see your account as one of millions. And they look at that big number and see what profitable deals they can make with other companies. And your profile being completely private won’t help them do that.

If they are basing their “theories” about the internet trends of sharing personal information based on people who blog about their lives and tweet to the world with photos and other private things, then is that right? Should these people right now even be doing that? Should this be encouraged for the rest of the online users?

I do feel strongly about this because I think that this year, Facebook will gradually take away more and more privacy control until you have no choice but to stay on Facebook and let everyone see most of your information or stay out of the network. I do understand that as a company, Facebook can use their large number of users for company growth. It’s what a company does and is expected to do. But I just hate how it is all painted behind false ideas and assumptions that this is what the users want, that this is where the internet is going. But this is where Facebook is attempting to make it go, and who can stop them? Go where you want to go, Facebook. But don’t think that you are doing this to make us happy. I think that Facebook will eventually turn your “profile” into your “website” for all to see. But for those of us that have used the network for many years will continue using it, thinking nothing’s changed. Then come the stalkers, the harassers, the identity stealers, and the pedophiles.

Congratulations to This American Life for winning first and second place awards at the Third Coast International Audio Festival!

Click here to listen to “Turncoat” (Act II: My Way or the FBI Way), the audio episode of TAL that won the Gold award.

Also, This American Life is where the second $5 of my $25 is going to. And when that $25 is up, I will see what else I can give this holiday season. I still believe in giving and supporting, even as I watch my wallet shrink day by day :/. With the thousands of miles I drive, what on earth would I do without shows like This American Life?

In Response To: RadioLab’s “Helicopter Boy” podcast, 11/03/2009

Today, I caught up on the last two episodes of RadioLab (a WNYC podcast).

It’s been fundraising time and RadioLab produced a short and sweet podcast using a story from one of their listeners called, “Helicopter Boy” as an incentive to remind listeners why they should donate and what their money supports.

The thing is, the radio stations are right. If you love listening to something everyday, why not contribute to it?

In the beginning of this year, I was very optimistic, more than I have ever been before. My friends and I said, “2009, this is going to be a great year.” I don’t know why, maybe because it’s the first year without any school for me!

Anyways, I went through the whole stress of job searching and struggling to pay bills and all. It’s still not easy, never easy, but I still think that it’s good to support things like radio stations, non-profits, local communities, and so on. I’m starting off this holiday season by setting aside $20 right now and choosing four different organizations or people I’d like to support. It’s not even about the amount you give that counts; just get in the habit of it.

First stop for my $5 is RadioLab. I’m picturing this money going toward a coffee each for RadioLab hosts, Jad and Robert.

Give a little bit to start the holidays off on the right foot!

Click here to listen to the podcast, “Helicopter Boy”. If you’ve wasted precious hours of your life following Balloon Boy, make up for it by hearing this story of a real inventive young boy.

———————————————————————————————–

UPDATE: Hehe, just came across this! Check out RadioLab’s Ramen Challenge!

“My glasses are a little foggy”: http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/10/23/the-ramen-challenge/