Natty Chatter

In this modern age, the problem with information on the Internet is that despite whatever measures are in place, they are inadequate. From security protocols to firewalls to encryption to passwords, each measure can be and has already been compromised either directly or indirectly.

In recent news, Facebook, the social networking website, had to shut down part of their service because of a security breach that allowed non-authorized users to see the information that had been restricted by the original users. Furthermore, recent changes to the terms of service of Facebook now gives the authors of applications to keep all information for as long as they wanted. Previously, authors of applications had to delete the information they gathered after 24 hours. Moreover, it also looks that that Facebook has decided that they would automatically shared all your information with their special partner sites without letting you know. If that weren't enough your "friends" on Facebook could also potentially share your information to Facebook's partner sites as well.

Fortunately, Facebook does allow you to unshare and prevent other leaks of your information by either changing default settings and also by removing applications that you're uncomfortable with that have your information.[1]

Alternatively, you could just follow the axiom that if you don't want anyone to know about something personal, don't ever post it somewhere online.

Footnotes:

1. Downloadsquad's Guide to protecting your information on the New Facebook (http://www.downloadsquad.com/2010/04/26/a-guide-to-protecting-your-information-privacy-on-the-new-facebook/)

In this economy, the term "Free" is an attention gatherer. Nothing will motivate people like a chance at getting something for nothing. Whether its a free scoop of Ben & Jerry's ice cream to free one day pass to Disney World, people love free even when it's at a cost.

For instance, take the very popular free Ben & Jerry's Free Cone Day (the last one was on April 21st) which is likely an annual festival for fellow Tar Heels near Franklin Street. Lots of students, graduates, even professors turn out for a free cone of amazing ice cream. In fact, it gets so popular that the line for a cone can take up to half a day. And the cost is self-evident, it is the time spent in that line. While for students, standing in line for half a day costs next to nothing, that time is of some value to people who could be doing something else. Assume for instance that a particular line stander makes minimum wage (capped at a low $6.55) and waits 1.5 hours for that free cone. That comes out to a cost of $9.83 that could have been earned for a small cone that costs maybe $3~4 dollars. The cost for a "free" cone becomes $5 in addition to the cost of that cone.

In the other case of the free day pass to Disney World, the associated costs of a trip to Disney World is many. Lodging, travel, and food are additional costs that are easily over looked. Moreover, its unlikely that a person would go for a single day to Disney World by themselves. Granted, one could make the case that if you lived in or near one of the Disney World facilities, lodging and travel can cost next to nothing. However, the fact still remains that there is still inherent costs once in the park. What costs? From a bottle of icy water to take the edge off the heat to the inflated prices for a simple bite to eat, nearly everything at a theme park is grossly inflated.

Even the offers of free service/software/advice are usually tagged with some sort of catch or gimmick. A quick view of mouseprint.org, shows the lengths that companies have done in their marketing campaigns to lure potential customers to purchase their products.

Bottom Line? The old adage of "if it's too good to be true, it probably is!".

-C

Question. Do you own things or do things that you have own you?

It's almost a silly question, yet when you consider the culture of consumerism that America is built on it becomes a serious issue. For instance, the phrase "keeping up with the Joneses" was once the status quo of many Americans. Nearly every aspect of an American life was analyzed and contrasted to measure the relative social hierarchy where one falls. Sure no one would ever reach the heights of Bill Gates, but striving to be just that little bit higher than your neighbor or co-worker was a pride worthy prize (even though it would be a Pyrrhic victory).

In fact, it reminds me of a scene with Christian Bale in American Pyscho (1991) where he and his colleagues are comparing (of all things) their business cards, specifically, the minute details of paper weight, font selection, color selection, and even embossing. Apparently, these minute details were a form of competition to establish the social hierarchy among this elite group. Yet this too seems so meaningless as these pieces of paper can be replicated and improved upon so readily.

However, despite the silliness of comparing business cards, the real application of the aforementioned question is based on perspective. We can easily say that this car or that house or that TV belongs to me therefore I own it. However, if we bought these things on credit then technically, we have these things but we are in the process of paying off a bank/institution to acquire "ownership". But even in the case of a car or a house, once the final payment is made, there are still maintenance fees, taxes and other costs that must be met continually. While most would argue that there is equity in said object after you pay it off, the fact remains that most objects are not self-sustaining and will require future investment by yourself.

Conversely, if you haven't paid off the balance on the car or house or even credit cards, the monthly payments you make are essentially making you a slave to the things you have. After all, hours worked at x job provides y dollars in which z amount is used to pay for <insert object name> per billing cycle. Moreover it's not like you could quit because without the monetary funds, you wouldn't be able to keep said object and for reasons mentioned previously once you finish paying it off, you still would have to have funds to pay for continual upkeep.

Maybe that's why Tyler Durden in Fight Club (1999) was so persuasive with the following:

The things you own end up owning you.

Therefore, it may be better to not own things as that would bring more freedom and mobility. Granted it may not be keeping up with the Joneses but to be free rather than bound by the shackles of materialism seems like a worthwhile goal to me.

-C

As we all know, this coming Saturday (Feb. 14th) holds a rather unique value to all those who have developed significant romantic relationships. Typically, during the days and weeks leading up to this event, companies invest heavily into advertising to entice you to make your day (and night) that much more memorable. However, every now and then something comes along that just smacks of marketing gone AWOL.

Take for instance, a marketing e-mail titled "What your Valentine REALLY wants" from the good folks over at GameStop. Their pitch is as follows:

The playwright William Congreve penned the words "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, nor hell a fury like a woman scorned." We're sure that Alma, the psychic entity from F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin has bigger reasons for her fury than not being asked to the Valentine's dance. She was the subject of some bizarre psychic experiments, and now she wants revenge.

So instead of spending a romantic afternoon/evening, the editor at GameStop would rather you play a suspenseful thriller game from the first person perspective. Now I'm not suggested that there aren't couples who enjoy video games in lieu of something more traditional, but I am suggesting that the probability is incredibly low.

In a similar fashion, the release of Friday the 13th on this coming Friday has an interesting timing as the release date is equal to that of the title, but the month selection is horrible. Given an "X" amount of money that will be generated on that weekend, it would seem more likely that romantic films or comedies would bring in the most revenue. From the perspective of men, it would seem easier for us guys to persuade a female to watch a romance or comedy versus a horror or thriller movie or even an action-packed blockbuster.

Disagree? Well compare the number of ladies who would much rather watch something like the Notebook, Casablanca or the Titanic versus Psycho, Alien, or the Shining. In a similar fashion which films would most guys rather watch (if they were going to watch a movie on their own)?

Given that this upcoming weekend will be spent by guys and gals as couples, I'd venture to say that the female choice is going to trump the guys choices (at least if they are smart).

My personal recommendation? For guys, this weekend presents a test of sorts to see how in-tune you are to your significant other. Yes, chocolates, roses and fancy jewelry might work in a pinch, but a well planned afternoon/evening with a personal gift that she will like and appreciate will yield a higher satisfaction. Remember, they have to put up with you for most of the year, so take the time to make the weekend a cherished memory.

-C

In this climate of economic downturn, it's very likely that many folks may find themselves applying for new positions for various reasons. Whether its within their own companies or to external organizations in the professional fields or even in social groupings, it is inevitable that rejection occurs.

Now in nearly all cases, rejection is painful because at the bottom line in a rejection is that you don't fit the position (whether professional or social) based on the qualification criteria that was used to determine your compatibility. Moreover, there are wounds that a rejection can cause on your psyche as you mull over the events leading up to rejection and the rejection itself.

At some point, there are a numerous set of clearly defined responses that we reach for immediately. For some it's anger at either oneself for not doing more or perhaps anger directed at the interviewer for not recognizing your compatibility. For others, it may be confusion as why they were found lacking in relation to the position being sought. And yet others will try to brush off the rejection by not responding back at all, thinking that a "tough cold shoulder" approach is best.

However, these approaches seem to "burn bridges" as it were to the position you were rejected for. Now granted, it might be sweet vengeance to get back at the people who hurt you by their rejection, but it also would probably seal their future consideration of you in the future. After all, if you are as qualified as you claim to be, then these people may wish to reconsider their choice after sometime spent with their initial choice.

Thus, a gracious response, a response thanking these interviewers for their time and consideration of you for that position would leave a positive impact in the event that their choice fails to achieve their expectations.

In the professional world, it is common to see companies select one candidate or vendor over another only to switch later down the road as their original selection was a poor choice. And typically the problem lies in the selection criteria that the company used in the first place. For instance, saving money by the selection of a cheaper vendor may turn out to be a poor choice if said vendor suffers from horrible quality or delivery commitments.

Conversely, in social circles, a rejection from a lady or a man could be a horrible mistake as their selection criteria may be the wrong set of qualities that they were attempting to fill. Or alternatively, they could have overlooked certain qualities of you (the rejected person) which are only illuminated by the person they originally selected. Therefore, by taking a gracious exit, that positive uplifting response may very well lead to a return call once their candidate fails to impress.

-C

A disturbing trend has emerged in our modern society and that trend is the far reaching extent of our ability to intercommunicate with each other. From e-mails to txt msgs to twitters to myspace to facebook to blackberrys crackberrys, we are now more connected to each other yet we are still so far apart.

Now I'll be the first one to admit to using these forms of communication because they are convenient and easier for the less confrontational meek, but the problem is that these forms lack the personality humanity of a good face to face or even a decent phone call. Why the lack of humanity in these technological gadgetry?

My answer is that as a species, humanity was designed to be a social creature. We have thrived as a civilization through our interactions with each other and the achievements/disasters we've made because of those interactions. Would Trojan War have happened if it wasn't for Helen? Or the inspiration of the divine for Michelangelo's rendering of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Could generations of men swept women off their feet without the help of romantic language comparing their love ones to the beauty of a rose or of a perfect sunset?

According to certain research, 55% of all human communication is based on body language, 38% is based on your tone of voice and that only 7% is based on what you have to say. Granted this particular set of statistics only apply to experiments dealing in the communication of feelings and attitudes. Thus, expression of human emotion or feelings by modern technological methods means that 93% gets displaced or lost in its translation. Now one might say that it's hard to misunderstand the three simple words that "all significant others" want to hear every now and then, but even that phrase can mean different things by its presentation.

Take a second and consider that simple phrase and deliver it with passion, then again with sarcasm, or how about with anger, or with boundless joy, or utter depression. Then try delivering that line while fighting the toilet with a plunger, or shaking your head in a no (side to side) manner, or throwing that long pass in football. Granted, you probably stopped at the second or third version, but surely anyone can agree that the what, when and how the words are presented can make a profound difference.

And the problem is that technology strips that away. The subtleties of the our language are stripped away to the lowest common denominator which is the mere words. Thus, resolve today at this very moment to stop and instead of e-mail, texting, facebooking, or myspacing someone, go find them and say what you have to say. Above all remember that your nonverbal language will be say so much more than your words could ever say by themselves.

-C

In these times, the world wants to convince us that perception is better than reality. It is better to be perceived as cool, hip, trendy, and wealthy than set out to achieve those attributes because it is easier and faster. In fact, the world even goes as far to eliminate the real for reality is based perception. A quick browse through the media shows all these "shortcuts" to the dreams and goals we have.

However, the problem lies in the fact that perception only holds on for the short term. For instance, getting that brand new luxury car or Armani suit gives the perception of wealth and perhaps status but only for a while unless one continues the trend. That is to say once it becomes perceived that the luxury car or suit becomes your sole possession then reality is revealed.

Another more practical model is the way we present ourselves to and act towards others in both professional and social settings. In professional settings, giving the perception of leadership maybe inspiring but it is lacking to an actual leader. Or in the instance of having the actual skill set is preferable to being perceived to have that same skill set. After all, the perception of a skill can not accomplish the objective if one does not have the skill. For instance, having the perception of being a good negotiator does not help if one can not actually negotiate deals. If anything the result of a false perception is more likely to bring misfortune and stress.

Meanwhile in social settings for men, the perception of being charming and gentlemanly is lacking in comparison to being truly charming and gentlemanly. Sure it is easier to act and give the perception of these qualities but eventually one's true nature, that is reality, sets in and conflict arises. Similarly, darker colors may give the perception of being slimmer but lacks in comparison with being slim.

Given that perception is fleeting and reality always around the corner, the world responds with that you should continually monitor and maintain the momentum of the perception that you have created. Essentially, perpetuating a falsehood continually which only increases in difficulty compared to setting out to achieve the reality in the first place.

Going back to the perception of being wealthy, the cost of maintaining the image requires considerable resources which will inevitably cause strife, misery, and ultimately shame for the non-wealthy. Equally, the perception of being charming requires constant acting which becomes a burden of itself compared to one being really charming.

Therefore, what we should advocate for is the reality of ourselves and others. Now I realize that reality is quite an eye opener compared to the fairy tale perception we enjoy. But considering the liberating freedom of reality, it would be wiser to err on the side of being real in interactions than acting.

In closing, let me do say this, being real may be the ultimate goal but there is a time and place for the reality to be expressed. The when, where, and how much reality is presented is just as important as the reality itself. The proportioning of reality is also of paramount but that is a topic for another day.