Two Slashes

Last weekend, Justin decided to award me with one of the “Kickass Blogger” awards that seem to be making their rounds like a particularly bland chain letter.  (I would have posted sooner, but I’ve been getting ready for school and it’s been hard to get some free time while I’m still unpacking.)

Not to demean the award or anything, but I’m of two minds about the concept (neither probably what the people who came up with the award are looking for, sadly), and I might as well get everyone else’s opinion.

As you might have guessed, I can see similarities between this award making its rounds and the chain letters my mother ever-so-happily forwards (directly into my Spam folder, mind you ) or the tripe you might find on MySpace, sans the “death penalty” for not forwarding it to anyone.  (I hope Justin doesn’t have to stab me with a spork under a blue moon in the middle of November for not passing this on.)

I also think it’s a little ridiculous to single out just a few people when there are probably a ton who deserve recognition.  (Of course, the exact number is up to the post authors, but all the same it seems like people are going for two or three at a time.  Interestingly, though, the original site requests that you suggest five blogs.)  Favorites games never work out well, though, so why should people be asked to put them into the spotlight?

I add blogs (and other sites) to my blogroll if I think they’re worth your attention, not because I need a “finalists” list for games like this.  Also, I realize that my blogroll is a little on the longer side, but rest assured that just about everything on that list finds its way into my browsing a few times a day.  (And people say they have problems…)

People shouldn’t need to write up posts suggesting where their readers should check up next; that’s the role of the blogroll (or whatever they happen to call their links section, if they have one), and I think that’s a start as far as recognition is concerned.  (Response posts would be another form of recognition, but that’s a different animal for a different day.)

So, given that little rant, instead of me rolling the dice and having to choose from that expansive published list in my sidebar, how about you try visiting a few of the glorious links in my blogroll of your own accord.  They’re all winners in my book, and they may very well be in yours as well.

(On the other hand, though, there are some great opportunities for a “Six Degrees” game here.  I’m just not motivated enough to follow through with it, though.)

I don’t mean to sound rabid with this post, so I apologize if you’re offended or otherwise put off by what I’ve said, but I’m standing by it.

This is more a small news update than anything, but as I noticed last night, LogMeIn has decided to revise their revenue model, offering most of the features formerly found in their Premium tier service (including the ability to run at the Windows service-level) for free to all non-commercial users.

Because this means that the built-in functionality for several formerly-Premium features is now enabled, the workaround I published a few months ago is no longer my recommended solution.  (My workaround will still work, however, should you decide you don’t want Hamachi to set itself up.)

As I’ve mentioned on several occasions, I try to be easily and openly accessible to everyone, be it via an instant messaging service such as AIM, IRC, e-mail, my Grand Central number, forums, and various other means that all but ensure the people I want to can get in touch with me.

Of course, this modus operandi comes with its own problems, mainly in the form of spam.  Normally I’m not one to complain about spam - heck, I go through the 900+ spam messages I get a day when I’m bored; if I had a quarter for every time I picked up an ‘herbal Viagara’ e-mail, my school tuition would be paid for - but over the past week, I’ve gone from entertained to thoroughly annoyed.

The problem itself is pretty fishy, and I’m at a loss for any explanation beyond what Google seems to be yielding, but in short, I’ve been plagued by plenty of instant messages from screen names starting with an adjective and ending in “trout.”  So far, I’ve been contacted by MindlessTrout, AssociatedTrout, and most recently RationedTrout, but there have been plenty of others in the mix.

Typically, these screen names will send one message, then tend to not respond to anything I say.  The exceptions, however, are those few that will respond with a simple greeting and nothing else.  In only one instance have I had any form of intelligent conversation, and that’s not saying much.  I’ve included the conversation below:

RationedTrout: Dennis Kucinich? Do you like Dennis Kucinich?
Nick Tabick: who are you
RationedTrout: I dont really care
RationedTrout: …..
RationedTrout: who is this?
RationedTrout: hmmmm??HMMM????!!!!!!
Nick Tabick: first you
RationedTrout: katy
RationedTrout: .
Nick Tabick: katy what
RationedTrout: ….first let me ask you this what state/country r u from ?
RationedTrout: u nameless person u
Nick Tabick: not sure i want to give that information to you until you answer my question
Nick Tabick: you first
RationedTrout: i dont like givong out my last name
RationedTrout: paranioa issues ya know?
RationedTrout: whats your FIRST name buddy?
Nick Tabick: could i ask you why all of my personal information is relevant to you?
RationedTrout: with your random barrack things
RationedTrout: cuz you asked me what my name was
RationedTrout: oh and i dont know you
RationedTrout: and you aked me random things
Nick Tabick: then why are you instant messaging me?
RationedTrout: so i thought “do i know this person?
RationedTrout: so the nI asked
RationedTrout: and im bored
RationedTrout: so thats why
Nick Tabick: and you have other screen names that end in “trout?”
RationedTrout: me? no I dont
RationedTrout: oh yeah and you asked me a question first so I answered
RationedTrout: and it progresssed from there
RationedTrout: yep
Nick Tabick: how did you get this screen name?
RationedTrout: i dont have this screen name
RationedTrout: how did YOU get mine?
RationedTrout: this is a little awkward
Nick Tabick: you messaged me first
RationedTrout: when?
Nick Tabick: six minutes ago
RationedTrout: what did I say?
Nick Tabick: RationedTrout: Dennis Kucinich? Do you like Dennis Kucinich?
Nick Tabick: did you type that?
RationedTrout: …thats not my screen name though
RationedTrout: this is odd
RationedTrout: cough c
Nick Tabick: what’s my screen name showing up as, then
RationedTrout: whos dennis kucinich?
RationedTrout: columnizedTrout
Nick Tabick: that’s not my screen name either
RationedTrout: ………okay
Nick Tabick: something tells me there’s something fishy (no pun intended) going on here
RationedTrout: lol same here
RationedTrout: hmmmm

From what I can gather as the result of this conversation, either these “trout” are semi-intelligent bots, or they’re randomly IMing people then connecting you with someone else, using some random discussion topic to confuse the two people they’re linking, which is just about everything Wikipedia has to say on the subject.  (I haven’t gathered too much additional information, other than that they all seem to be IMing just one of my screen names as opposed to two or more of the five I actively have attached to Trillian, so however they ended up with my username, it wasn’t scraped from here.)

If anyone else has had some random messages from the fish, I’d love to hear about it.  Maybe we can come up with some consistencies in who/what they target?

Addendum (8/19/2008): A bit of creative searching and some help from the commenters (Thank you, Colin!) has turned up what might be a solution to the trout troubles.  According to this link, responding to the bot with “$optout” should stop them from bothering you.  I just tried it out myself, so we’ll have to see if I get any more fishy instant messages.

And while I’m at it, I’m pretty amazed at the number of responses, both here and on sites like Twitter en masse.

For anyone who intends to be building something like this in the future, even if it’s an experiment, it would be cool to get a little bit of a heads-up explaining what it is, and getting my permission before letting the cat out of the bag.  Is a little etiquette too much to ask?

Addendum 2 (8/19/2008): I think it’s safe to call responding with “$optout” a permanent working solution as long as this response from the bot speaks the truth:

HornedTrout: Are you going to die?
Nick Tabick: $optout
HornedTrout: OPERATOR: Are you sure you want to opt-out? If you do, you will *never* be contacted again on the account “NickTabick”. There is *no way* to opt back in and undo this.
If you are sure, type “$optout 2DF2″. Remember, this is permanent and irreversible!
Nick Tabick: $optout 2DF2
HornedTrout: OPERATOR: You have opted out. The account “NickTabick” will *never* be contacted again. Good bye!

Note:  The “2DF2″ is probably a randomly-generated string so you can’t automate the response, the equivalent to a rudimentary (but copy/paste-able) captcha.

If you are waiting for the next IM, you can speed up the process by adding yourself to the queue with the request page here.  (At least, that’s what I did.)  I would also consider submitting yourself to that page to be a reasonable test of whether you are indeed blacklisted, as I have tried a few times and not heard a peep.

This also brings up a fork in the road as far as preventative measures; you can either hope your screen name doesn’t get IMs, or you can trust that the bot’s creator(s) will be true to their word when they say that they will never contact you again, queue your screen name with the request page, and respond with “$optout” as soon as the bot gets around to you.

I think it’s safe to call this issue closed.

Listen to emo?  Perhaps you’re an emotionally-sensitive wrist-slitter.  How about rap?  Well, the bets are on that you’ve been having boatloads of sex and been drunk enough to make Lindsay Lohan look like a model citizen.  And jazz?  Oh, you’re probably hiding in the closet, too much of a loner to do anything social (like comment?).

I don’t mean to offend anyone there, as it’s not actually me saying any of that.  Nope, those would be (more or less) the words of Felicity Baker, who has all but attached every genre of music with some insane mental or social health diagnosis.  No offense to her, but I find it extremely ridiculous that any person who so much as turns on a radio could be diagnosed as suicidal or a drug addict.

I also say that none of this is revolutionary due to the fact that all of the “diagnoses” seem to be common themes in that genre.  For example, in a genre that (at this point in time) prides itself on “banging dem hoes” and getting “crunk,” it’s a miracle at all that someone could suggest that people who listen to rap are following along without someone having already noticed the obvious similarity. And while I can’t call H.I.M. “heavy metal”, there are enough mentions of drug use throughout metal and rock to give me credit when I point out one of the (pardon me) “documented types” of groupie.  I am, however, having a hard time picturing the corellation between techno and suicide.

The point I’m trying to make here is that this “research” isn’t really research so much as a “medically-relevant” way to stereotype people based upon the genres of music they listen to.  Think about it:  I know quite a few people who listen to those types of music, and I think the worst habit any of them have is a cigarette habit, hardly self-destructive nature at the level Baker (and the according article there) seem to imply.

Not every genre has been accounted for (at least judging by the article I linked to), but enough are mentioned to account for almost every person I’ve ever met.  And with the multifaceted nature of music, most music may actually end up classified at least partially under a genre that this article ties with “bad connotations,” or (to what probably would be a mixture of horror and ridicule) multiple “bad” genres.

I guess I’ll go back to listening to my vast library, and quit putting fuel on the fire.  Call me a depressed, drug-addicted loner with suicidal tendencies and questionable sexuality if you want, but I’m in perfectly good health and I’m not going to let something as harebrained as an amateur diagnosis of my social and mental capacities ruin my listening pleasure.  So go on then.  Ensure your path to drug addiction, wrist-cutting, and wallflower behavior today.

Side note:  I’d love to know the researcher’s medical opinion to songs like this one.  Aside from the flagrant disregard for authority, of course.

A few days ago, I was sifting through my referrer logs in a bored attempt to see which sites were bringing in readers, and which were nothing more than blogspam. In the course of this work, I naturally happened upon a cache of hits from sites like Plurk and Twitter, places where I’ve previously plugged my site. One of the referrers stood out to me, inherently different from the others; this one had not been posted by me, but in fact by someone I had never met (and probably never will), and had started a short but legitimate discussion about my writing here at Two Slashes.

The source: A post on Plurk linking to my thoughts on the service.

When I saw the thread, I practically fell out of my seat laughing, partly in celebration and partly at myself. No, there’s nothing particularly comedic about being linked to; it’s cool, but not humorous in any respect I can think of. No, my humor came mostly from realizing the primary shortcomings in my post.

I’ve always berided MySpace as being the collective “emo” scourge of the Internet, and apparently I’m not alone as the very first response notes my failure to mention MySpace in the usual (or the blogosphere equivalent of “politically-correct”) manner. Perhaps part of the reason I failed in this respect is because I’ve all but let MySpace fall from my thoughts anymore; it takes direct mention to even let me know that the site exists anymore as I’ve tuned it out almost completely from my thoughts. (I have my account still, but I can’t even tell you the last time I logged into it, and they don’t bother me with notifications because I registered with an e-mail address at a domain I no longer have.)

While Twitter’s had some ups and downs as far as availability, overall it’s been more than accessible enough for my taste (especially when I seem to miss their outages by not being around to experience them), and I don’t find the interface as wasteful as I do Plurk’s. To me (and I’ll throw in the obvious-but-mandatory opinion warning for safety), I find Plurk’s timeline idea to be novel, but not as efficient at using screen space as Twitter’s uniform list layout. Plurk’s timeline requires a lot of scrolling to be useful, and while the timeline gives you a more visual idea of the time spacing between peoples’ updates, it can also be a nuisance if that person (a la myself) has a lot of free space between two updates. Plurk’s idea to include threading was definitely a smart move, though.

Perhaps a directed post at the people from that Plurk link might be suitable here, so I’ll try this:

• Ecin: Thanks for noticing my faults in reviewing Plurk, and helping to point out that I might have been a little biased in my review, but remember that it’s more of my personal opinion than a professional review. All the same, I don’t find the timeline conducive to the way I would use the site as it leaves too much empty space for my liking.  I also don’t think you’re defending Plurk outright so much as simply offering the idea that you seem to be more of a Plurk than a Twitter fan. There’s nothing wrong with Plurk or Twitter, really; it’s more of a matter of preference, and I’ve chosen Twitter for reasons that may be completely different from the reasons for which you chose Plurk.
• Daicoden: I appreciate that you like the design of my site, even if my content isn’t up to your desired level. If you have any suggestions as far as design, pass them along.

To the both of you, if you’re reading, you’re welcome to leave comments (as is anyone else).

I’m not normally one for movie reviews, but I’m bored enough that just about anything is fair game for the moment.  And I need to stop with the multi-meaning post titles, I think.

During the course of this weekend, it came to be that I was stuck in a movie theater, once again (involuntarily) subjecting myself to overpriced/underperforming excuses for Hollywood creativity.  This weekend, the excuse was called The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, and for starters, this is probably one franchise they could have gone in a completely different direction with.

The writing is probably the biggest issue this movie has going for it.  Not only is it a rehash of everything already seen (with a backdrop in China this time), but they’ve taken anything that might have made the characters interesting and spun it into their most annoying attributes, with some off-brand sci-fi added in for kicks.  This combination means that not only is there absolutely nothing that holds your attention for long, you can see the clear transitions where action X happened in one or both of the previous movies.  The movie additionally suffers from some emotional compass issues that for all the world look like someone put a magnet next to the compass about halfway through the writing process, making the end result look inhuman enough to ruin the experience.

The special effects weren’t the worst, and took a bit of work (that much is apparent), but the storyline is too much of a black hole for them to save anything (in my opinion).  Anyone who has seen the movie should get what I mean when I say ‘avalanche,’ for example.

I’m not stopping you from seeing this (Warning: clichéd adjective) monstrosity, but I’m extremely curious how something with such poor reviews (more about my interpretations of them in a moment) managed to barely succomb to The Dark Knight, especially considering the showing I went to had no more than twenty-five people in a theater for several hundred.  At the least, you should be prepared for disappointment and a lack of new content, though.

Now, I’m sure someone’s going to call me out for mentioning reviews, since of course the reviewers are not me and probably don’t have the same biases or any of that other related baggage.  However, I’ve generally trusted Rotten Tomatoes (to an extent), with the rule of thumb that anything with an exceedingly low score (to compensate for their experiences) tends to suck as much for me as it did for them, anything with a middling score or above is probably something that will be at least watchable.

While The Mummy is not the worst thing I’ve ever seen, it certainly does nothing to make me want to watch it repeatedly.  Personally, I’ll go back to watching whatever movies the rest of my family has watched to death over Tomb again.

Note to Hollywood:  Care to stop ruining any more watchable movie franchises while you’re ahead?  My movie money may very well end up spent on my college textbooks if you keep this up.  And I promise to quit writing reviews if you follow through.