Mixed Nuts IV

So the Red Sox are #1 already? Sweet!

Very funny Facebook animated social commentary.

And people say *I* have too much free time...

Cats are irreverent. And that's why I love them.

Wait for it...!

Good for men and women: ringtones can make women's breasts larger!

32 Songs in 8 Minutes. This kid's really quite good! First time I've heard Pokemon mixed with Chocolate Rain and AC/DC.

You'd better log out, or this guy's gonna get you!

A true hero in these trying times.

Jon Stewart, in three parts, shows he is not only funny, but insightful, and can also kick ass.

Who is baseball's cancer?

Hey, it's time to play Layoff!!!

Moving murals, very cool!

And lastly, for those who like this sort of thing (cough), Playboy just digitized 53 issues unedited from 1954 - 2007, and put them online for FREE in a nifty scrollable/zoomable site! Downside: Micro$oft's Silverlight required. Upside: Staples are no longer an issue.

10 Reasons Why Facebook Now Sucks

UPDATE: As of 11:59pm, 3/18/09, about 5 days after I posted this, I have gotten approx. 6000 hits! People are pissed about this, and you're not alone.


The new "redesign" of Facebook which was released earlier today -- March 13, 2009 -- to a "select" group of users (sadly, me included) was clearly designed by a 5-year-old -- oh wait, no, I take that back...my daughter could design a better front end than they did.

They took a LOT of functionality, customization, and filtering capability OUT of the home page and replaced it with Twitter-like features, which is to say, they dumbed it down for children. I don't think I have ever before seen such a global removal of functionality touted as a revolutionary beneficial redesign for all end-users. It ended up being quite the opposite.

Below, you will find my top 10 reasons Twitterbook Facebook is no longer relevant if they keep this current iteration of their design:

1. There is no more "Live Feed", which would show you every status update, friend add, and comment, all updated on the fly without having to refresh. This was extremely useful to people who wanted to potentially see friends that they might be connected to, or just to not have to worry about refreshing the page every time they wanted to see an update, which you are now *required* to do.

2. There are no more filtering capabilities in the "News Feed" with the exception of either an ALL or NOTHING setting for individual friends. There used to be a multitude of filtering options of not only being able to turn off completely an individual friend's updates, but you could also raise or lower the importance of other updates such as statuses, comments, photos, etc. This was extremely useful. It's abominable that Facebook actually removed so much functionality from their GUI.

3. They increased the font size of updates as if we were either children or geriatrics, and cluttered the page up so much it's difficult to find anything. They added thumbnail icons of our profile photos next to EVERY comment/post we, or anyone else makes such that the page is now filled with large font text and photos (many just duplicates of yourself!) all over the place, with no ability to customize or turn them off.

4. The only filtering system that the home page has is the ability to allow you to only show "groups" of people that you have classified your friends into. I can't imagine that people with 500+ friends have gone through and created "Classmates", "Family", "Drinkin Buddies", "F**k Friends", and other categories for every single person they add. And even if they did, it seems very unlikely that this feature would be used very much -- it's more likely that they would just specify not to show certain individual's updates, rather than an entire class of people.

5. They added an advertisement box at the top right where it's ugly and not helpful. Well, okay, ad are never particularly helpful, but this is extremely distracting, and even programs like Adblock Plus have a difficult time blocking them (though it's not impossible as I found out). Now clearly, this is to help them drive up revenue, but it would certainly help their cause much more to create a user-friendly GUI, rather than shoving an ad in your face with a lousy GUI and having everyone simply quit the site and delete their accounts.

6. They added a "Highlights" feature on the right side which isn't helpful to anyone, which displays applications that people may have in common with you (like that's helpful), and groups that people might have joined that you potentially could be interested in. I haven't found one group that I'd be interested in, not to mention the fact that this is all duplicated information that was in your Feed stream when the person actually added that group or played with that app!

7. They've removed or made difficult to find events (birthdays, etc.). You actually have to go into your bottom Applications toolbar, click on the Events app (if it's even there), and then click on the Birthdays tab to see who has an upcoming birthday. Maybe it's me, but don't you think you would want to be able to see those upcoming birthday's and reminders right on your home page?...oh yeah, that would be in the OLD Facebook design, wouldn't it? Sigh.

8. The text entry box now asks, "What's on your mind?" No offense to Facebook, but if I really typed in what was on my mind, they would have to ban me. Also, if we typed in exactly what was on our mind, it would end up displaying something like, "Matt L. that I hate this design." Huh?? So you have to word your answer in the form of a sentence with no subject like you did in the old system when it said much more simply: "Write something..." with "Matt L." to the left of the text box to show you how the rest of your sentence is going to display. Well, okay, now I guess I'll instead just have to write something about your arse and my foot, alright?

9. It's almost impossible to find the location to complain about anything on this site or give user feedback. (See what I did there, including the actual links? Huh, huh?) On their Help page (cough, cough) they actually deign to say they are going to "simplify the user experience". I guess by "simplify" they really mean "make all the decisions for you." Hmm.

10. There is no centralized location of Status Updates, in case you actually want to see what everyone is up to like they used to have -- kinda like Twitter, which I would assume they are trying to emulate. Well, that's strange. Don't allow us to actually see the updates, but design the site in a overly-simplified way like Twitter, which doesn't need fancy functionality in the first place. Confused much? Welcome to our world.

It is very clear to me that the Facebook staff really have no idea what they are doing, where they are taking the site, and what branding means. They have a very specific and very useful and unique site (or at least they used to!). They are a hybrid of Myspace, LinkedIn, and Twitter, all-in-one, but without the childish things like themes or the one-track-functionality of Twitter. They even say on their own blog (a place where you can comment, btw!) that they often run "product testing sessions" with users and non-users, and they have even tried testing an eye-tracking program (read: as useful as astrology) to track how users use their site. So there's some actual research going on here, right?

But by dumbing down their site, which is clearly what they have done, they are going to lose the entire demographic that CEO Mark Zuckerburg just talked about being their "fastest growing demographic": the 35+ users. Yeah, well, let's just see how long busy 30-somethings stick around when you dumb down your site and insult their intelligence.

As one user's comments put it: "Maybe there are some good things about the new layout, but I don't know what they are." Well, I can certainly tell you that I'm not going to stick around for long if they don't change it.

You just cannot trust economists.

In the world of the pot calling the kettle black, a group of economists announced today that they were giving a grade of 59 out of 100 to President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner for their handling of the economic crisis so far. Most of the low score was based on delays out of the administration to take sweeping action.

However, the economists never end up turning that gilded mirror upon themselves. As quoted in the very same article:

The economists, many of whom have been continually surprised by the depth of the downturn, also pushed back yet again their forecasts for when a recovery would begin. On average, they expect the downturn to end in October. Last month, they said the bottom would arrive in August. They estimate that U.S. gross domestic product will continue to contract in the first half of this year, with slow growth returning in the third quarter.

"We just keep moving the date [when the recession will end] out, hoping at some point in time we will be able to move the date back in," said Diane Swonk of Mesirow Financial.

Do these people even realize what they are saying? That they actually don't know anything about forecasting, and that every single model they put together doesn't work? Economics at this point has become a laughing stock akin to divining your future from astrology. They'd have a better chance of figuring out what was going to happen if they blindfolded themselves and played pin the tail on the donkey on a calendar -- at least there would be some random chance of them hitting the right date, and instead they just look like fools and idiots.

So can we really believe ANYthing that economists have to say about the performance of the President, right now, when they don't even know what they are talking about when it comes to forecasts and predictions (which is their JOB?)?

Madoff actually going to hell jail??

"Assistant U.S. Attorney Marc Litt said there was no plea deal and that Madoff could be exposed to the maximum penalty under sentencing guidelines: 150 years."

There are certain traitorous people in this world who should be hanged, beheaded, drawn and quartered, oh, and my personal favorite, have their entrails cut out and burned.

And after he is gone, Bernie Madoff shall most certainly dwell in the Ninth Circle of hell in the deepest part of Judecca, where he will be tortured for eternity with the likes of Satan, Brutus, Cassius, and Judas Iscariot, all traitors to their lords and benefactors. Have fun, jagoff!!

Charting your future...

Sorry I haven't posted anything in a while, but "these are tough economic times." Yeah, it seems that people are using that excuse for everything nowadays. Kinda sad, really, but only true in certain cases. In my case, it's just pure laziness.

And speaking of the economy, now you can track the US unemployment rates, as well as state-by-state rates, and see, in a fully customizable chart, just how miserable you really are and how much more miserable you are probably going to be! Sweet!

Wow, the US is screwed...

...but New Hampshire isn't really all that bad.

Seriously, though, there really are a lot of very nifty charting capabilities on this site including GDP, personal income, interest rates, cost indices, retail sales, house construction, etc.! Basically anything you want to chart, and it's available and up-to-date.

For you economics geeks out there, this is a wonderful resource to have at your fingertips, and I highly suggest you check it out!

Mixed Nuts III

Woo-woo! It's Superbowl time, so let's flashback to Terry Tate, Office Linebacker, baby! "You kill the joe, you make some mo'!!"

Thundercats, HOOOOO!! Ahh, if it were only true...

WTF: Make sure you notify your landlord at least 60 days before you die?

Less and smaller Girl Scout Cookies! Noooooo!

Extreme Etch-a-Sketching.

Electric cars are slow, you say? How about a 1972 Datsun 1200 doing 110 mph in just a 1/4 mile? This will blow your mind!

For the women out there: High-heels can not only get you a man, but they may even have a potential health benefit...better sex!

Whatever you do, don't turn left!

Dumb blondes are contagious...sigh.

When playing basketball, it is often necessary to wipe off the soles of your shoes -- but you're not really supposed to use use someone's face to do it.

And finally, The Daily Show's end credits of the last 8 years. Ahh, memories.

Form over function...

So the other day I was thinking about how there are so many of these so-called "athletes" who are known only or mainly for their incredible bodies and nothing else. The vast majority of these never-has-beens who have capitalized on their form over their function are, of course, women. Take a look at these ten, and see if you recognize any faces or names...no?...well then, just enjoy the eye candy:
Anna Semenovich
	Russian figure skater who is really, really only known for her beauty and her "top shelf" assets, and not so much her skating ability. It's really a wonder she was ever able to land a jump with those offsetting her balance. NSFW.
Ashley Harkleroad
	So-so professional tennis player who has no wins, but did place first in one event: first pro tennis player to pose in Playboy. And for that, she won a cool $250,000. Oh, and are you kididng me??...is that really a Jesus fish tattoo she has? NSFW.
Natalie Gulbis
	With only one minor tournament win to her name, the only thing she seems to be flouting these days is her body in magazines and on TV. Nowadays, I guess all you need is blond hair and a bikini, and you can make millions on just your yearly calendars alone, even with little or no talent. Kinda NSFW.
Sophie Sandolo
	Another along the Gulbis line of thought, Sandolo said: "My first sexy calendar is intended to represent my love for golf." Huh? So showing your boobs means you love golf? Uhhh...okay. I guess the fact that you don't have any wins means that it's time to make money doing something else...like stripping. NSFW.
Amy Acuff
	High-jumper who never made it to the top three in the Olympics, but she has posed for multiple men's magazines, including Playboy. "I did it for the financial aspect. It's really hard to make that kind of money in the real world." So you're saying you took your clothes off for money? Your honor, the prosecution rests. NSFW.
Mary Sauer
	Broke the 15 foot mark in pole vaulting in the past, but she has never made the US Olympic team in multiple tries. Well, at least she's got a nice body, so that makes it okay, right? NSFW.
Amy Taylor (and the entire Matildas team!)
	The Australian women's national football (soccer) team had never made it past the first round of either the World Cup or the Olympics. So when things started getting cash-strapped, the entire team decided to pose nude for a calendar, with "cover-girl" Amy Taylor leading the charge. Because nothing says "women should be treated like equals" like porn! Kinda NSFW (Taylor) and NSFW (the whole team!).
Sara Boberg
	Mistakenly thought of as an Swedish Olympic crossbow champion (she was never an olympian, nor is crossbow even an Olympic event! duh...), and though she may have been an archer of some merit, she was made famous by her photographs. NSFW.
Corina Ungureanu
	After doing well at the World Championships, but never competing in the Olympics, this gymnast decided that the next logical step was to 1) pose nude for Playboy, 2) publish two nude photobooks, and 3) film two DVD's featuring her and two former teammates doing gymnastics in the nude. Huh. Maybe she innocently thought that the bouncing boobies were artistic? I bet that the 5-year ban from gymnastics that they all received made her rethink that. NSFW.
Tanja Szewczenko
	I guess that in Germany, 6th place in figure skating in the Olympics buys you a role in a German soap opera and gets you invited to pose not once, but twice for the German edition of Playboy. Way to use the system, Tanja! NSFW.
And finally, here's one with both beauty AND talent...
Katerina Witt
	8 German Championships (all in a row), 6 European Championships (also in a row), 4 World Championships, and back-to-back Olympic gold medals. Heck, she's even won an Emmy! Maybe it's just me, but I believe that she's earned the right to pose nude if she wants to. NSFW.

Economy FAIL?! Really not a surprise.

It rhymes with "shmeshession".
 

Barrons reported today that "Retail sales sank again in December and far more than expected, putting to rest any doubt that consumers are retrenching over job losses and fears of unemployment." No shit, Sherlock. I really don't know who these so-called economists have been talking to, but ya see, things go down when you're in the middle of a recession. Duh.

And I don't know who the marketing geniuses are who keep trying this, but these economists really have to stop trying to give us false hopes by saying that "things are looking better" or "indicators are looking up" or "it's possible that things might-someday-in-the-near-or-far-future-one-day-real-soon-perhaps-maybe be better."

It reminds me of the parent telling the kids that they can have a treat if they do something good. Then they reach into their pockets and find that they don't have the money to buy the treat. Naturally, the kids act just like a manic depressive: they go from ecstatic joy to deep depression in about 5 seconds flat. Nice job, parent! Wouldn't it have been better to simply check first to see if you have the money in your pocket? Trust me, the child will get over it much faster if you just admit the truth up front.

The same is true of the American people. The economists are creating a bipolar society which gets more depressed when they see "worse than expected" numbers, rather than "expected, but low", numbers. Time to speak the truth, economists. Yes, it will get better eventually, but for now, just calm down and accept it. We can handle it.

Red states are more corrupt?

Now I'm not saying that Blue states are particularly squeaky clean, but they do seem to have an advantage when compared to Red states as to the amount of corruption that occurs there, according to one study done recently.

State comparison of corruption convictions (darker blue = worse)

As Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was being arrested for being just plain stupid, a study was done looking at the number of convictions for corruption vs. state population. Now it seems to me that a "per-capita" comparison is a bit shaky, as I don't believe there is a direct way to compare convictions to how populous your state is. Is it statistically accurate to say that the larger a population, the more government jobs there are? I think I would rather see the comparison be a direct one with convictions vs. number of government jobs per state. But that's just me being pedantic.

What is clear from the map above is that all up and down the Appalachian Deliverance country, corruption is pretty dern bad, y'all! Also, up in Big Sky country and the Dakotas, it's pretty bad with the relaxation of campaign finance and disclosure laws there. Duh...what were you thinking?

Interesting, however, that the Northeast, Northern Midwest, and West Coast states all have relatively low corruption per-capita. I think we can all draw our own conclusions here, but it is certainly interesting that these states happen to be Blue states.

Obama is just Right enough

Shifty Presidents?
 

An article posted today on Yahoo News discusses the edginess of "liberals" who worry that Obama hasn't appointed enough left-wingers for their tastes, even going so far as to say that he is "surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet." It just goes to show that there really are nutjobs on both sides of the aisle.

Now though this author is generally left-leaning, he is not stupid. These people need to wake up and understand two things: 1) how you get things done in Washington vis-à-vis politicking and 2) how you salvage a self-destructing economy in the wake of a ridiculously bad president. To answer this, let's take a look at a past analogue: Bill Clinton.

When President Clinton was first voted into office, he made the mistake of leaning too far left and surrounding himself with staunch liberals. Sure, the country initially thought that they wanted him to do so, but it was a complete disaster. He didn't get anything done -- remember his healthcare "reform"? -- and he was looking like a one-term president. He didn't start actually getting any real work done until he started shifting his political ideals to the center later in his first term (see: NAFTA, welfare reform, etc.).

I think we all generally understand that Obama is going to have to compromise on certain issues to repair the economy. But one thing that irks me about the sense of outrage from the far-left is that they seem to have no understanding of the legacy that Bill Clinton left on us. Most people will find it hard to deny that while he had is personal foibles, he was most certainly one of our more successful presidents, passing bills that were both left-leaning -- Family and Medical Leave Act, Brady Bill, Minimum Wage Increase -- and right-leaning -- Line Item Veto, AEDPA, and of course, NAFTA and welfare. He helped to create a balanced budget and a federal surplus (A surplus? An actual refund?? What's that?!). Clinton was able to bring the politicians together by centering the policies and creating compromise-based government in which both sides were accountable.

So to have these liberal pundits upset at how Obama is biting the very hand that fed him is them admitting that they are children in the world of grown ups. They are whining about being abandoned, when in reality, many of the promises Obama made during the campaign (before the recession was realized) are simply not feasible now. Democrats always complained about how Bush was living in some sort of dream world and that he couldn't be fiscally irresponsible without there being harmful repercussions. Well, the same standard holds true no matter who is president.

I'm sorry, but adults understand that sometimes circumstances change how you have to approach a problem. Bush never got that concept when it came to the economy. But Bill Clinton clearly understood it. And thankfully Barack Obama is now showing us that he does, too. So put down your rattle and your teething ring, quit your crying, and get on board.