Just last week, I blogged about an article posted by one Ryan Tate regarding the letter Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg sent out to everyone about the privacy changes. Ryan believed that Facebook would remove various privacy settings and then set everyone’s options to “what they recommend” AKA Public.

Well, the changes went into effect yesterday. When I logged into Facebook a box popped up asking me to specify my privacy settings. Sure enough, they were suggesting that I choose “everyone” to be able to search for me.

I keep my Facebook settings private for a reason. There are select individuals who who share mutual friends with me – individuals that I do not want to know that I have a Facebook. People that I do not feel comfortable knowing my whereabouts and what I am up to. Previously no one was able to search for me, and if I were to post on a mutual friends account, the “individual” would see my name but no link to contact me or view my profile and no picture.

Now with Facebook’s new settings, there is no longer an option for that. People still cannot search for me which is good. But those previously mentioned individuals can now click on and view my profile, see my profile picture (and the full size at that!), and contact me. There is NOWHERE in the privacy settings for me to turn this off, and I am not pleased one bit.

The only good thing about the changes, is that there is now an option to “view what others can see,” so people can now see what thier profile looks like to everyone.

I was inclined to give Facebook the benefit of the doubt, but sadly they failed me. Thus I give kudos to Ryan Tate for reading between the lines of Mark Zuckerberg’s post.

During my recent trip to Las Vegas, I was watching the News when a segment on gun carry permits came on. It would seem that several Americans think they would feel safer if they were allowed to carry guns with them wherever they go. A gun salesmen was explaining how the process to obtain a gun permit was very strict, and thus claiming that in order to obtain a gun carry permit one would have to be stable. He seemed to think that being able to have a gun for protection purposes was a great idea.

Would I feel safer if I was allowed to carry a gun with me when I walk around late at night? Not really. Why? Several reasons.

One: If I were allowed to bring a gun with me wherever I go, so would everyone else. What good is a gun for protection, when the other party has one two? No doubt whoever I’m up against would be faster. I would feel safe at all, knowing that everyone I pass is likely to be carrying a gun.

Two: Everyday hundreds of accidents occur involving guns. Clearly the ‘safety’ latch only goes so far. Clumsy as I am, I would be likely to shoot myself. But more so, anyone that gets scared and pulls their gun is likely to loose their head and start shooting. What about innocent bystanders?

Three: Children. As it is many children have shot themselves or their friends when they somehow managed to get their hands on their parents guns. If their parents are carrying their guns around everywhere they go, it is ten times more likely for some kid to happen across it. Not to mention the unstable teenagers of the past, the same ones that somehow managed to get guns to shoot up their schools.

How anyone could feel safe knowing that other people passing them on the street could be possessing firearms legally, is beyond me. The possibility that someone is carrying a gun illegally is already scary enough!

http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=190423927130

I combed through the article and it sounds alright. Facebook believes that the region networks (such as Vancouver or Los Angeles or New York) is no longer needed because when each network has one million plus – its not really serving its purpose. Which is true. So they are removing it and changing their privacy options to what they feel will be simpler and easier to control.

Which sounds okay. I know that most people are afraid of change, and change can often not be all its cracked up to be – but as long as our privacy remains private (or as private as possible on the internet in this day and age :S) I am not inclined to take issue with this particular thing.

Ryan Tate of Gawker, on the other hand, has a completely different opinion:

http://gawker.com/5417145/facebooks-new-privacy-scheme-smells-like-an-anti%20privacy-plot

Ryan Tate is convinced that this is a new scheme to destroy our privacy. While I don’t necessarily agree with his viewpoints on the issue, I do see how he might be suspicious. After all- is privacy safe anywhere on the internet today? Not really. Facebook is first and foremost out there to make money so one can never be truly sure that they won’t sell our souls to the devil, so to speak.

SO I think the article is good in the sense that it warns us to stay on our guard, to ensure our privacy settings are still up to our standards and to keep an eye out for violations of such privacy.

It never hurts to be cautious.

According to my sources which happen to also be UCLA students, the protests were very dramatic. Although, it was relatively quiet and peaceful- as far as protests go, not only were twelve people arrested and at least one guy tasered, but it would seem there were seven or eight black protesters quarantined far away from the main protest. It would seem that the police did not feel that it was safe to allow those protesters anywhere near the heart of the protest. According to my source who was actually there “It was like going back in time forty years!”

So naturally I decided to watch the News on Thursday night to see if anything about this was mentioned. Of course not, the news discusses the students protesting yes – but in none of the videos nor students interviewed was there any sign of these quarantined blacks.

Continuing my research I have found article after article on the protest itself, but no pictures or reports suggest anything of this sort. It would seem that while is apparently still acceptable for the police to segregate blacks who may be a danger to the protest, it is not acceptable to own up to it in the media. I guess African Americans still have a ways to go…

While it’s true that the police may have had legitimate reasons for separating these protesters, if they did have just reasoning why did they hide it from the media? Call me crazy, but if you truly stand behind your actions, should you not be willing to admit it to the public?

Articles and Pictures regarding the protests:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/UCLA-Protest-Arrests-70404787.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uc-cuts20-2009nov20,0,7218101.story
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/11/ucla-students-end-a-day-of-protest-over-fee-hiks.htm

Zynga is the company that brought Facebook addictive games such as Mafia Wars, Farmville and Yoville. Most people on Facebook have heard of these games at the very least, and a good chunk of them are addicted to at least one of them.

Recently the CEO of Zynga was at a mixer talking to some developers, during this talk he bragged about how he was scamming people through facebook, not only with the adds he displayed in the games themselves, but also in the ways the games are actually ran. For example, in Mafia Wars the player has the opportunity to buy “power boosts” which prevent them from having to wait for their ‘power’ to restore. They can also sign up for special offers with companies, that are designed to scam the user into paying hidden fees and known for downloading harmful spyware to users computers.

I don’t understand how it can be okay for Facebook to market such games proudly, when they are only out to scam people. How can this be legal?

Moreover, I have often wondered about the Ads that Facebook itself displays. Countless aids for the “Secret to whiter teeth” or “Rachel Rays Secret Diet” or “earn millions working from home” etc, how is it okay for them to sell advertisement space for this stuff? Its disgusting, and sad when you consider how many people fall for such things.

Isn’t Internet Scamming illegal? If this is the case, how can mega popular sites like Facebook promote them? This is wrong on SO many levels!

On October 21st, Eric Williams was arrested for being naked in his own home. At 5:30 in the morning, he woke up, went downstairs, and made himself a cup of coffee in the buff; not realizing that a mother and her seven year old son were cutting through his yard.

The mother called her husband, who happened to be the police and the next thing Williams knew, he was being arrested for indecent exposure, and informed that he could end up with a year in jail and a $2000 fine.

Call me crazy, but what one does in ones own home is their own business. If someone wants to walk around naked in their own house, that is their prerogative! Its their house, and most importantly a free country. Especially at 5:30 AM, when no ones around!

The fact that a mother was cutting through HIS yard at 5:30AM, does not give her, or the cops, or anyone else the right to claim he was “trying to be seen.” Now if he were standing in front of his window, watching them – then they might have grounds. But he wasn’t, he was making coffee. It was dark. How was he supposed to know some lady and her kid were going to TRESSPASS across his yard and peer in his window at him?

Insanity!

Yesterday in class we were discussing the new Windows 7 VS Vista, and if Vista really had the problems everyone complains about… At that point I hadn’t seen any of the commercials for it, but apparently it had aired repeatedly on TV the night before. So last night, during Greys Anatomy I paid attention, within the two hours I was watching ABC, the commercial aired at least three times. From what I’ve heard its been like this for a few days now, yet prior to the Oct 22nd release date I had not even heard Windows had a new system to release!

With most electronics, video games and movies for example, there’s a huge lead in prior to the release date. When a movie is released to DVD the advertisements are aired weeks in advance, and previews in movie theaters will give the release date months in advance. All to raise hype, so that the day the release date comes everyone rushes out to the store to purchase their copy.

Yet with Microsoft’s operating systems, little is reported on the system other then the common assurances that they are working out the issues, until the system is actually released and suddenly it’s everywhere! Why?

When I was 16 years old I bought my first laptop. Not two weeks later Microsoft released Windows XP! Would I have spent the money on a laptop two weeks earlier if i had of known I could wait and have the brand new system in two weeks?

Of course, Microsoft does usually have a program for cases like mine, which allows one to send away for a free upgrade. Which I did get and loaded onto my brand new computer, it worked – but my computer definitely ran slower on the different system.

You’d think I’d learn my lesson right? Of course not. Two years ago I purchased the laptop I have now: a Sony VAIO running on XP. Not two weeks later guess what? VISTA CAME OUT. Although the option was available to me, I never bothered to request my free copy of Vista because XP had not worked so well on my older computer.

Why is it that I have a tendency to purchase a lap top two weeks before the new system comes out every single time? The answer is simple: no one tells us the new version is coming out, heaven forbid computer sales go down for the six months or so prior to the release!

This is just one of the many ways commercials use manipulation.

Another thing I couldn’t help but notice, was that Clorox is now using H1N1 virus or ‘Swine Flu’ in thier commercials to promote their anti bacterial products. Why not? Everyone is panicked already, why not ‘help’ the public out by giving them a product that could potentially save their lives?

I’ll bet the Head Office is pleased it came into play, they must be making millions! In fact, it kinda makes one wonder if the Swine being all over the media has anything to do with the companies that are making money off the people’s panic….

I did not watch the news, but I was tempted to because I want to know which vegetable might kill me. A friend in the room with me commented on how he ‘hates’ it when the news does this, and it got me thinking.

Lets look at the first part of their spiel “Plane flies 150 miles past destination while controllers on the ground try desperately to reach the pilots!”

They made it sound as though the plane was still in the air, still hadn’t been reached and who knows where it was going or what would happen to the people on board.

Of course when I saw the article that was in the LA Times today I noticed the flight itself had actually taken place on Wednesday. By the time that they aired that teaser, the pilots and the 140 passengers had been safely on the ground for nearly 20 hours!

Yet by blowing everything way out of proportion they could easily grab onto any innocent Greys Anatomy or Private Practice fan who happens to catch the teaser, and force them to watch out of fear of a second 9/11…

Its a pretty sick joke when you think about it…

Since I didn’t actually watch the news, its hard to say exactly what became of the vegetable story. But I have no doubt that it equated to the same thing that the news I used to watch back home in Canada would have done.

For example, one night while watching the news with my mother there was a teaser: “Coming up: Find out which foods you eat every day could kill you!” This teaser would be displayed every the news went to commercial, to keep you there, out of curiosity, for the answer. Then about five minutes before the end of the hour they’d do a quick “Your Health” segment where Dr Rhonda Low would explain how studies have found that people who eat more meat then vegetables have a better chance of getting heart disease.

None of this was particularly shocking, yet by the way they were promoting it one would have thought that they were about to give them breaking news on how cauliflower is secretly poisonous or something along those lines.

Is it really fair for the Media to distort facts in a way that makes everything sound 50 times worse then it is for the sake of ratings?

Source:LA Times article on the Plane that overshot its destination…

We’ve all heard of, and continuously rolled our eyes about Barbara Streisand and her many ‘farewell’ tours, which have of course now blossomed into ‘tours’.

Now Garth Brooks, the country singer whose also the biggest selling solo performer of all times, who went into retirement 8 years ago. Of course since then he has played in several charity event concerts in various locations, and there are now recent allegations saying that he is going to yet again come out of retirement for a concert series in Vegas of all places. Sound familiar?

The article itself has no actual details, really it just discusses how fans don’t mind because his concerts are great and he’s so very popular, and the most important line “I think fans all expect to [entertainers who retire] to come back sooner or later.”

I wonder why they even bother calling it retirement in the first place. Celebrities get tired of the crazy life, and they’ve got enough money so why not retire… Then a few years later when they start to miss performing they start right back up again.

But is sounds to me like this whole retirement thing is just a gimmick. Celebrity gets tired, wants a break so they announce retirement. They give a massive final tour which naturally sells out as its the last time the fans will ever see them live and then they’ve got plenty of millions to live out the next few years until they decide they miss the life. Then they pull the whole charade back out again and start over.

Why not just say their taking a break for awhile?

Well that just doesn’t sell like “FINAL TOUR” does, now does it?

Really when you think about it, its just like the 15 billion stores in new york that claim their “going out of business” and “everything must go” you know the ones, they’ve been going out of business for the past 20 years!

It would be nice to see some truth once in awhile!

Back to Garth though, he’s clearly one of the good ones. He always insists on low ticket prices so all his fans can afford it, not just the rich ones. He’ll also put on 8 or 9 shows in one place to ensure as many as possible have the opportunity to see him. I just wish he wouldn’t call himself ‘retired’ and thus put himself alongside all the other liars out there…

It was announced earlier this morning that President Barack Obama is the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Some say that he was given it on the basis that he is not Bush, plain and simple.

As it stands he was Nominated for the award two weeks after he became president, on the grounds of what he intended to accomplish as president. I believe this is the first time that a Nobel Peace Prize has ever been awarded based on Intention alone. Anyone could ‘intend’ something like that… Heck I could intend to achieve world peace this year… But no one seems to be offering me any sort of prize.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee Chair said: “Obama’s ability to capture the public’s attention and engage them in a new type of diplomacy makes him deserving of the honor.”

This sounds to me like a fancy way of saying that he’s getting this award based on the notion that he’s willing to negotiate before jumping straight into war. Call me crazy, but I find it kind of sad that they feel anyone should deserve such a prestigious award for an attitude that everyone should partake in.

The only saving grace here is Obama himself, who has made it clear that he is as confused as the rest of us. “I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have won this prize before me,” he said and then added “I will accept this award as a call for action, a call for all nations to accept the challenges of the 21st century.”

If Obama continues to live up to everything he promises, then in my humble opinion he will definitely be worthy of such a prize… It just seems like they’re jumping the gun a little here…