Lyrical Analysis (Or: Why are pop fans so dumb?)

So let's look at billboard for a sec here...

Katy Perry is in the number one spot. I'm not surprised. She's generally liked. Party Rock is sitting strong at #2 and I have no qualms with this.

Looking down the list. Wait... Britney Spears is still in the top ten? Are we still in the 90s? What is this? I thought we were done with her after the multiple children and the shitty falling out of her marriage. Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that a pop star can have kids, but I still can't respect Britney.

Oh gosh, Lady Gaga is still up there. Does anyone remember her last big hit, Born this way? It's so bad. I guess once you prove that you can sing about wanting anal sex without any of your fan base noticing, you no longer have to care what you're singing about.


Born this way is a badly written song. So let's start at the beginning. How many just decided that they believe in g-d the moment that heard this song? It's very un-subtle about this topic. Things that it is subtle about:
- People from Asia are "Orients"
- "Chola" is the new word for Latina descent
- Gay guys who dress up as women are a "drag" and should stop being so
- Lesbian is separate and different from gay
- There is nothing wrong with you and you should never stride to improve!

Some of these are arguable, but I'm going to start with what I find the most offensive. "Chola." This is the term for a Latina gang member. This is not an endearing term. This is not something that any woman should want to be called. (also, subtext here is that if you're a man you don't matter, but since Lady Gaga's audience is mostly female this point is less important.) Basically, why is she using this terrible terminology for something that could have been much less offensive with one more syllable?

You could argue that calling Asians "Orient" instead of "Oriental" is not as bad, but that's akin to saying that you're calling me a turd instead of a shit, when I'd rather you call me neither.

The point that she's calling people who dress in drag is a little less enforceable, but I do find it funny that she says, "Don't be a drag - Just be a queen." 3 times and then says, "Don't be!" Really, she should have left out this last line. Even if it isn't telling people not to be drag queens by resoundingly saying "Don't be" it's very easy to misinterpret it as such, and therefore should have been avoided.

Then there's the overarching theme that you should not try to improve. "We are all born superstars," so why even put in the effort to improve your skills? I rage at this so hard that I don't even know how to put it into words. Hard work is often more times more important than innate skill. But this song spins it in an entirely different way.

Lastly, to address the less subtle idea in the song, g-d has made us all the way we are. Good job making an entire decade of preteens and teens into bible-thumpers. I never thought I would hear a pop fan tell me that I was made in g-d's image and that I was disgracing him by not believing in myself. Also, why is Gaga advocating the idea of a male g-d? This idea seems like it is against one of her central ideological pillars.

So, to be strictly clear, I don't think Lady Gaga is a bad singer. In fact, she brought herself into stardom from relatively little. I respect this. However, she can't say that a lot of hard work and a little bit of luck didn't also contribute. Also, don't have an unnatural hair color when telling your fans that you were born this way. Hair dye is completely artificial. I have nothing against hair dye. Actually, I like hair dye. I was planning on bleaching my hair again this coming school year, but I'm very unmotivated. The point is, I think you should recognize the unnatural aspects and address them in order to not sound like a hypocrite.

And now to bash a song that I actually really like. The Cave is probably one of the better songs out right now, but lyricists seem to give less and less of a shit daily. This isn't a nostalgia rant, because Sage Francis is very recent, but his lyrics are incredible. Instead, this is a rant aimed at pop and pop rock lyrics. The Cave upset me because I listened to it and thought it was a song about empowerment. Then I looked up the lyrics and saw "And I won't let you choke; On the noose around your neck." For those who were slow to pick up on what I'm talking about, when I first heard the song I thought it said that I will let you choke on the noose around your neck. This changed the song from being about empowerment to being about kindness. It took one word to change the message of the song. I will continue to sing the song the way I hear it, because I like my message more. At least, it's more unique in this industry than one about kindness and acceptance. Also, it fits the rest of the song better.

Well, I got distracted from the top 100 list. Nothing else pops out at me. Maybe Cobra Starship and Black Eyed Peas. I don't recognize most of these names. How out of touch with current culture am I? Or maybe I'm just more critical of it... Oh, ET by Katy Perry at 32. A friend recently pointed out that this song romanticizes rape, but that's not my rant, it's her's. And then the Lazy song at 34. I like Bruno Mars. Avril Lavigne is still relevant? She's at #73.

Where's Aloe Blacc? Well, even though Billboard doesn't have it, I can still leave you with good music.

Thoughts on 3AM

Not thoughts at 3AM, but rather thoughts on the idea of 3AM. Well, I'll get to that in a sec. First thing's first.

I didn't realize that the last two articles I commented on were written by the same person. They were found through different means on different days. Putting them together makes me sad. It paints a story of complaining about guys she dates and why she dumped them, while complaining also that other guys she has dated have dumped her. And in both situations feeling that the other party is at fault.

So, back to the topic at hand, 3AM. I don't like it. It's the time I realize that I'm in for a terrible morning. Either I'm not going to go to sleep until 5AM, or I'm not going to sleep. Before 3AM I have the choice of sleeping at any point I wish, but once 3AM rolls around I get a second wind. I'm sure the time varies for everyone, but it's at 3AM that I realize I'm not going to get a full night's sleep. Some people like the fact that they can feel awake a second time. I, on the other hand, wish that my body would say, "NO! Fuck you! Go the fuck to sleep! Right now!" Unfortunately, it says, "Well, you've made it this far. Just take another 2 hours while you're at it..." It's almost as spiteful as I am. Stupid body... Stop acting like me.

Haha! Writing things at stupid hours of the days makes me realize things about myself I'd rather not know. I would really like my body to act like something sensible, rather than like me. 3AM should just be taken off of the clock. There should be 2AM, and then just have 5AM 3 hours later, with nothing in between. Mostly because that's how it feels to me. 2AM should have 180 minutes packed into it. It wouldn't really change anything anyways. Everyone else who's even awake at that time would be just like me, in that they also wish they weren't so. And by "so" I mean "awake," not "like me." Everyone should wish to be like me, because I'm awesome.

Anyways, yes Specter, we should trade FF Dissidia friend cards. I've already beaten about 8 stories. Actually, I could even do one of my fancy reviews on Dissidia. Especially since it's a game that I like, and is rather unique in its execution, like most other games I talk about. Expect that eventually. Like after the next 6 month break from this blog.

Lose All of Your Faith in Humanity

Wow... This is unsettling.

So, what's the best thing you could do for young impressionable people? I think that the best thing you could do would be to tell people that dating nice people is a bad thing. /sarcasm

How could anyone accept this piece. It seems like it is written in seriousness. This makes me sad.

You feel like a terrible person because you shat on someone nice. Your solution is to not date nice people. This is the wrong solution. You will not enjoy your life if you date not nice people. If you are a nice person, getting shit on by others won't make you love your life.

The solution should be to date nice people and not shit on them! How is this hard to figure out? You can like that nice person. You can like him and even have him like you back. You can find him spineless and try to help him with decisions. It may not even be that he's indecisive. It just looks like that to you because he wants you to make whatever decisions make you happy. So you're indecisive too? That doesn't give you a right to criticize him. In fact, that gives you even less reason to criticize him. You should understand that he suffers from something you yourself have failed to overcome.

Or, you can be a dickhead. Surround yourself with terrible people. That way, no one will ever be better than you. Then you can be proud of being the best... of a group in which no one should ever be proud of themselves. Great job. Just never associate yourself with me.

You Should Stop Being so Snobby

This link is snotty, supercilious, and pretentious. Read it if you want to feel like shit for not having done anything wrong.

So apparently, if you don't read, you are stupid. I know there's a trend, but I wouldn't call myself a reader. On the other hand, I do appreciate a good plot and have a rather extensive vocabulary. I'm even decent at spelling. I wouldn't call my self a genius, but I am educated to an extent.

So I read this piece. I wouldn't call it an article, but piece suits it well. It's a piece geared towards men and written in a very Johnathon Swift air. How many of you read books? If I know my audience (all two of you) I would say there isn't one among you that doesn't. However, how many of you had to Google Johnathon Swift before you remember what he wrote? How many of you remembered what A Modest Proposal is once you saw the title as the Google result. I would like to posit, that perhaps you aren't necessarily smarter than a non-reader, just because you read.

I am not saying that trends don't exist, but this is stereotyping, as much as it is to say that Jews are good with money. Only, this stereotype is insulting to people who don't find books to be their medium of choice. Worse yet, if you say things about race or religion you will be reprimanded, while if you say things about choice of medium you will be encouraged. One of the best examples is how current media has no respect for video games. Yes, there are brutally violent video games, but there are also brutally violent movies, TV shows, radio broadcasts, and even books. There are in fact piece of literature that are far more disgusting than any game I've ever played. I play games continuously. I have dreams, pleasant subconscious symphonies, about Tetris or Mario (and sometimes both together). When I have nightmares, it's about books. One vivid memory is that caused by a line from Battle Royale. This piece of literature is disgusting. I see no redeeming value in it. Yet, I would be ridiculed for enjoying the plot of Bioshock while anyone who read this piece of trash called a book would be seen as better than me for improving themselves by reading. This is an infuriating double standard.

Finally the Government accepts video games as an art form, and the response we get is that they're using tax payer dollars (which they aren't because the art grants are privately funding) to enforce Call of Duty (which they aren't because only artful projects will be eligible for grants). The public response to banned books is to read them because "books shouldn't be censored."

The current stigma needs to be fixed. I say fixed because I think it's currently broken. Terribly grotesque books should be called out. Video games should be recognized as beneficial. Where is the justice in the current system? Oh wait, I'm once again assuming that people are smart. Well, they must be, since so many people read books. At least, this is what I'm led to believe if this piece is to be believed.

Tacit Knowledge

In class today there was a discussion about tacit knowledge. In case you don't want to Google search it or look it up on Wikipedia, tacit knowledge is basically a synonym for experience. The discussion we had in class was on tacit knowledge was really necessary. Basically, we asked if everything needs to be learned through experience, or if we could possibly do anything right the first time we try by using a rule set. We consensus was that, while it may be possible write down an all encompassing rule set, it wouldn't be terribly easy.

Now, the conclusion wasn't as interesting to me as the way that some of my classmates argued it was. The discussion was based on whether or not tacit knowledge was necessary. I said it wouldn't, because robots can't be built on tacit knowledge. They always work on rule sets. However, they can learn rule sets strong enough to walk over rough and uneven terrain. Why wouldn't they be able to use genetic algorithms to create rule sets for any given task? My classmates said that this would be tacit knowledge.

I want to clarify this for a second here. We had a definition for what a term is. Then I made a claim that we don't need anything by that definition. Then, the classmate said that his definition actually included the attributes that I said lied outside of the definition. He cited the change in rule set as it still being tacit knowledge. However, tacit only means that it is knowledge that can't be shown as a rule set, and not that the rule set it can be shown as cannot change. If the rule set cannot change, then all knowledge would have to be tacit. We are always finding new smaller additions and changes to the sets of rules that we hold dear. Yet, these changes don't invalidate the old rules. The only justify them. Isaac Asimov wrote an incredible read on "The Relativity of Wrong." Really, everyone should go read it. However, it's only tangentially related to this discussion, so I won't go off on another rant about that.

I just want to know how often this tactic is used in arguments. Do classmates always attack the definitions in order to prove the points that they like? It seems like a bad practice. I suppose if it was more prevalent, then I would have noticed it before now. I'm just rather upset that my classmate believed he had pulled off his argument sufficiently. In fact, I believe that he may have convinced part of the class. This really upsets me. Also, it upsets me that I'm not sure if I won. Even if my logic followed much more soundly than his, I haven't actually achieved anything if no one has changed their mind.

I don't believe that it was my job to change his mind. However, I want him to follow logical conclusions. I believe that rule sets can compensate for experience. We can give robots the capacity to learn and write rule sets. We can take those rule sets and put them in other robots. And the most important point is that those robots, having had no experience, we perform just as well as the primary robot. I believe all knowledge is recordable, and can be re-written. Just because us humans are bad at projecting knowledge, does not mean that the knowledge we possess, or knowledge in general, cannot be projected. The world can be changed by us. We only have to step back and realize that we may not be able to use personal abilities to do so.

Though I suppose we can't really know that unless we experience it. According to my fellow classmates we will need tacit knowledge of creatures smarter than we are, in order to truly understand that not only things that humans can do are possible actions.

Falling Out

I'm confused. I never thought that losing a friend would feel bad. I thought it would just be a little missed opportunity that could be picked up again later. But what if I actually messed up? No. This isn't a what if. I messed up.

The difference though, is that a SO relationship only has a limited number of tries. Friendship is not quite the same. Since so many people can share it with so many other people, you can try it as much as both parties are willing to. However, that means that this shot depends on if the other person is willing to be my friend.

Usually this wouldn't be an issue. I'm super awesome, I make friends easily. It's just that when you hurt a person, they have to think for a second before they give you that chance again. I think it shows patience, and if they accept, exactly the kind of person that you should never hurt again.

So anyways. I feel like I shouldn't get so sentimental about a friendship, but that's kind of the person that I am. So anyways... I'm gonna go back to working out those relationship fuck ups I've gotten myself into... Hopefully it'll all turn out for the better.

Sexual Psychology

Why do people always get so angry with me when I say that sexual orientation is a nurture thing? It wouldn't make sense for it to be a hard genetic trait, or homosexuals would die off, and they would do so even more quickly if more homosexuals are open and less likely to have a child with a cover-up spouse. This means that homosexual rights activists who believe that this trait is nature and advocate more openness are actively diminishing the homosexual population.

Okay. Homosexuality could also be a harder to define trait. It could be less like blue eyes and more like what kind of job or career a person would want to do when they grow up. This still means that being homosexual would thin out the more that people are sexually open. It wouldn't completely kill off homosexuals, but advocating open homosexuality would be akin, in my mind, to telling people of a certain race that they are no longer allowed to reproduce.

This is why I feel that I have to believe that homosexuality is nurture. Maybe it is just to satisfy myself, but I want homosexuals to be as open as they want to be, without any chance that this could be killing a community.

Also, I would like to clarify that nurture does not mean that something is a choice. It doesn't even mean that it can be prevented. What it does mean is that gender roles aren't taught as strongly as they used to be and people are more likely to accept whatever a person shows the world, so whatever you are attracted to is much easier to accept.

I want you to think about every trait that defines who you are. How many of these traits are nature and how many are nurture? Dyed hair is nurture. Tattoos are nurture. Piercings, even ears, is nurture. Nurture is anything that you weren't born with. In my opinion, people aren't born with sexuality. Children don't choose their friends based on physical attraction. Hormone supplements are easy for anyone to take, regardless of their age, so I don't think that hormones should take as much of the blame for sexuality as they used to.

I feel like it would be just as difficult to describe why you find someone attractive as it would be to explain why your favorite color is your favorite. I really doubt that favorite colors are a nature trait.

Just because something is nurture, rather than nature, does not mean that it is a choice. I don't believe there is a gene that makes you gay. There could surely be genes that predispose a person towards a certain lifestyle, but personality and behavior are nurture traits. And homosexuality is a behavior.

All of the Electronics

I find that I surround myself with electronics. I even found out that they are what I value the most. I was talking to one of my friends about what I would do with all my stuff if I were to get hit by a bus tomorrow (morbid, I know, but it was interesting) and I found out that I was pretty much only listing electronic devices. I don't think that I value much of anything that I own that doesn't have some kind of circuitry in in. I also found out that I value my PSP more than my laptop. However, I think that should just naturally follow when I have an amazing Desktop computer that my laptop can never trump, while the PSP games are exclusive to that system.

Enough with the PSP (which shall certainly be a later post). I also realized that I am pretty much never without my electronics. I usually have my laptop on me, when I'm not around my computer, and when I don't have either, I still have my phone. Plus, I have my Archos on me half the time as well. Then there's the PSP, which I play in bed and on buses. I also have a DS, but I just beat the last DS game on my shelf so it will be sitting there for a little while longer. Pokemon Black and White is coming out in the USA in about a week. That's when I'll take it off of the shelf.

Already having distracted myself from the topic twice, I have to make my major point before I go onto another tangent. Today's world is filled with circuitry. I feel that everyone should know something about technology. However, I'm glad that I'm an electrical engineer, because my life is filled with even more technology than most. I have tons of shiny toys, and new ones are coming out every day. The 3DS and NGP are both incredibly appealing. I don't think I'll get the 3DS early on, but the later models should be stronger and cheaper anyways if Nintendo will repeat the same handheld model that they have been using for several generations.

These machines are great tools. They help me with day to day life. They change the way that I look at the world. A trip out is now an episode of one of my favorite TV shows. A night in is 3 games of League of Legends. My time is planned around how much I can do on a given system. This means that batteries are charged nightly, so that the power supply isn't a limiting factor on how I can spend my time. I like the option to do anything I can with my electronics, even though I often just do the same thing over and over.

Anyways, I have no problem with my life being as electronically inclined as it is. I know that some people do, but it's not a bad thing to me. Maybe it should be, but I like having all these tools and toys around me. I feel like I will always have an electrically inclined life. I suppose that I will have a computer hooked up to my television, and perhaps one in the kitchen as well. This would mean that I can have my whole house under control from anywhere on the internet. Obviously, there will be encryption and passwords, and some systems will not be on the net, but the whole house should be controllable from just about anywhere in the house from a single source. I should be able to find a good bluetooth remote control and tell my TV to turn on or the kitchen stove to preheat from the couch. I should even be able to turn on any lighting that I want and have the dryer tell me when it's done drying clothes. It might even be able to tell me how much moisture is left in them and the time left on any cycles that aren't done. I would love setting up my house with central computer systems. about 1000 dollars should be able to cover all of the households electronic needs while not breaking the bank.

So as you can see, this is how I plan to live. I want my whole house to work in terms that I understand. They will all have the circuitry that I am studying right now. I will be able to set scheduling applications into my household. Instead of timing my life around electronics, I'll be able to time my electronics around my life. Electronics will probably always surround me, and hopefully I will always love them just as much as I do now.

Creativity

I really wish that I was a creative person. I don't mean that I can't come up with ideas, but most people can. I just can't put them into any solid medium. I can't mix up music, paint, or make sculptures. Those are all things that I find interesting and I wish I could do, but I just don't think that I have the necessary skill set in order to do all or any of these things. I would be able to do them, but it requires effort. I'm sure that this wouldn't be an exorbitant amount, but it is quite definitely a limiting factor on the amount of stuff that I can do. Personally, I've set a grand amount of effort into perfecting my video game skill. I don't play video games as most people do. I still enjoy it, and consider it one of my hobbies, but I don't play it to shoot things in the face. I play it to master the math of the game and to understand what can make the game more compliant to my will. I think this may be a little arrogant, but that really isn't my intent. I know that I'm not great at the execution of video game tasks, so I try to excel in the strategic aspects. I try to excel a great deal in these strategic aspects. Perhaps I could do quite a bit better if I focused more on increasing my reaction speed, but I don't know how much better that can get, being that I've played video games all my life.

And truthfully, that's an important statement. I've played video games all my life. Playing these games is my creativity. It's how I express myself. When I'm angry, I play recklessly. When I'm sad, I'm cautious and self-defeating. The way I'm feeling changes how I act in game, and shows a part of myself.

I truly wish that I had more aspects of creativity. There are so many other ways that I could express myself that would probably improve the world. However, I don't think that I'm doing a bad job, and I connect with my friends at the same time. video games are an outlet that I adore and support. They are creativity.

Writing Prompts

Writing Prompts seem to be the silliest thing ever. I'll admit that I couldn't think of something to write, so I Googled "writing prompts." Do you know what results you get when you search for that? You get a collective of arbitrary ideas that have absolutely no cohesion. Some of these ideas are interesting, but a majority of them are just plain silly. Really... you want me to write about a tight-rope walking melon? What will happen to the couple in which the man just inherited a ton of money? I think it'll probably be what most people expect. Then again, I guess everyone thinks that those things will play out differently than I think they will... Whatever. I'll file that one under "maybe I'll write about it if there's ever a point at which I'm that out of ideas and hate my life beyond any reasonable doubt." I really hope that I don't become that bad.

Regardless, I do need to know what to write about. Maybe I should just write about League of Legends daily. I do play it daily. I would have great new stories every day. There would be one about how great friends Teemo and Blitzcrank are until Blitz accidently farts static electricity everywhere and Teemo can't eat his shrooms anymore because of the silence caused by the fart. Yeah, that would be high class.

I could write about a romance between Nidalee and Udyr, since they both love nature and looking like wild animals. The difference there, though, is that Udyr is a furry while Nidalee actually morphs back and forth. Dressing up in animal skins... High class once again Udyr. Good job saving me from that disgrace.

Okay. So, I hope you realize why I don't write about League of Legends every day. There would be no good way for me to take it seriously. I could rant about all of the stupid things that have happened to me in game, but that still doesn't hold anything more than a daily anger rant and I don't personally find that interesting, so I wouldn't want to write about it.

I want to get something started. I want to write some fictional pieces on this blog. I'm sure that it will increase my desire to write and give me many new topics to write about. I'm just not sure if it fits the current style of this blog. Eh... I don't really think that it matters. I currently have recipes, rants, and random plugs for things that I like. How could short stories not fit into this mix? I think I'll do those. They just take a lot more refining than any of my other posts.

So here goes the expedition. I've written a few fiction pieces, but I truthfully haven't finished any of them. As soon as I do, I'll start to place them up here. They might take time though, and they certainly won't come with the great frequency of my blog posts. (That was meant to be a humorous reference to the missing 5 months of posts on this site.) I suppose it will take some time to gain back the trust of all of my 3 readers, but I will definitely be able to soon rehabilitate my reputation if I actually stick to any kind of schedule. Is 3 posts a week good? Okay. We'll do that then. I'll try Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, but I really don't know how well I'll be able to stick to that, being that I'm currently making a Thursday post that follows up a Tuesday one. Sorry for the inconsistency from week to week, but I hope that people will be able to show up on weekends, expecting 3 new entries from me. And I also hope that I deliver. Now I just need to know what to fill up 3 pages a week with...

Minecraft

Wow. What an interesting idea. This is probably the first reaction of anyone who is still playing Minecraft. Minecraft is one of those games that really lets you do anything as long as you have enough ingenuity.

So, Minecraft is an indie game. I just love it. Then again, what am I, if not indie? I've been described by some of my closest friends as "too indie." I find this a silly idea. Finding great things is not something to bemoan, but rather, something to celebrate.

I think in part it was the way I was raised. My dad said that Linux is great, so I tried it. I didn't get it working right away. No. I didn't really even get it working for a couple years. Now, I can't imagine not having Linux. It works much more smoothly than Windows. I don't know how to explain it to people who don't want to use Linux, but it just works really well. And for something that's free, that's amazing. Open source projects are amazing. In fact, most unpublished projects are amazing. I think it's great that they can work when they have no financial backing.

Minecraft is one of those unpublished greats. It's such a strong contender for the most simple game ever, but it has so much depth that some people would attack you for calling it simple. At it's heart though, that's what it is. It is a system that works on a very small scale, and yet, can create very big things. Without simple interactions between objects, there is no way that the system would be able to manage everything that is going on at any one time.

One of the things that annoys me, is the group of people that follow Minecraft. This doesn't mean all of them, but the loudest ones. It's the same for the Call of Duty crowd, and the Whedonites. I love most of what Joss Whedon creates. I just don't like accepting his work unconditionally. This goes the same for Minecraft. Minecraft is a clone of Infiniminer. I didn't know this until I looked up Minecraft on the Wikipedia. It was inspired by an earlier game that had similar things set up. However, Infiniminer had the advantage of being a team based game. I truthfully want to see Minecraft have a team based mode. The game would become a lot more interesting if there was a multiplayer challenge aspect. This is what draws me in League of Legends and Team Fortress 2. Both of these amazing games truly deserve to be looked at and given a chance, because they are amazing games.

Anyways, play minecraft. There's a free version, which is fun, and a version that cost only ~18$ which is even more fun. Yes, it's not the most original, but that doesn't make it less fun. Play it. You'll thank yourself for doing so. And even if you don't like it, then you won't have wasted anything other than 5 minutes, and you can always go right to LoL or TF2 afterward.

Facebook

It's really quite amazing. At one time it can both be a plethora of information, yet a barren wasteland of nothingness. There's so much writing, and so many words. But there's also so little value. Why do people bother with it?

It is truthfully silly to ask why people bother. I know the reasons for several of my close friends, and tons of other people that I know less well. It's an open canvas that other people can see. It's an ocean of information. If you know where to look, you can actually get something from it. You can find out where the next party is going to be. You can understand what is important to those that you care about. I suppose it is quite a bit easier, but to me it seems like a first order operational strategy.

Facebook provides us with an easy out. We can ignore people for weeks and months and then reconnect within seconds. The amount of effort that goes in is minuscule compared to what you get out of the system. There are certainly ways to get more information from the people you know, but few, if any, ways to get that amount of information with any less effort than you would exert on facebook. You don't need to remember the one thing that the person wants so that you can get it for them on their birthday. You don't even need to remember when their birthday is. The system does that for you. It tells you that significant events are coming up. It gives you a million phone numbers and tons of wish-lists. It has information that no one would ever have to know. It's got... pretty much the largest database of personal information on any one website, ever.

So you can get to know people really well. Sure, you may be able to get to know them better, but how many people do you really want to know that well? On the other hand, how many people do you want to congratulate you on a celebration? I would say that most people would want hundreds of birthday wishes. They might want tons of advice for each and every question. Regardless of what they want, most people will get many more responses than they could hope for, even with the lot that they hoped up.

The one problem is that everyone else needs to put in the same amount of effort as you do for this to be effective for you. If none of your friends check it daily, then you probably won't check it daily. In fact, you probably wouldn't even bother to make an account.

The good news is, most people already are putting in this effort. There are certainly exceptions, but I'm sure their numbers are dwindling. Eventually, it will be an inconvenience to not have an account. In fact, there have already been cases where I was glad to have an account, just so that I wouldn't have to go looking for an address or phone number too hard. It's right there. It certainly does help.

I guess... I just don't like that it replaces the communication we have already in place. Though... phones are falling out. And those already made the mail much less useful.

I suppose there could be some bias. No, I don't suppose this. I know that I am biased. Some people call me pretentious for not being on facebook. The bad part is that I like this. I feel like it distinguishes me. Most of the most "pretentious" people are the intelligent ones. They are critical of what's around them and understand what they don't know. It's not a case of Ancient Greek wisdom that I'm talking about, but rather a form of modesty. It's nice to see people admit that they don't know how something works. These are not the masses.

The masses are the loudest or most populous. They're the ones with the highest birth to death rate. These happen to be the people lowering the IQ of the general population. These are the people who know how all blue collar work works and could do it, but wouldn't lower themselves to it. The smart ones know that they couldn't do blue collar work. The masses yell and scream that other people are lazy while they look up pictures of cats at work all day. The masses think they deserve things that others know need to be earned. The masses use facebook.