The most recent rumor spurred by social media seems to be combining implausibility and fear. And, this is not to suggest that rumors are new to the social media network, but that they are travelling faster and there is very little tracking as to the truth or rumor of an event.
Clowns carrying a knife, gun, or some other dangerous weapon are appearing in so many places that police can’t keep up with the reports. And so far there have been no actual clowns with evil intentions; yet! But what happens when someone gets the idea to capitalize on the hype and really carry out a tragic act. Will the warning be considered just part of the rumor mill and be disregarded? Or will it escalate like spoofing and swatting?
It requires a fair amount of resources to follow up on a complaint, particularly at a college or university. The schools own intranet can only send a threat message once it has been verified and that takes valuable time. And that happens as we approach Halloween?
We are living in a time where fear is being used as a weapon against us by unseen enemies. It is a time when we should be attempting to tamp down rumors and innuendo. But we are failing to be responsible and use reason to increase our sense of safety. Instead, we are doing this to ourselves! It is very similar to the hate messages that are always more “entertaining” than those comments that are positive. But when did we become fixated on hate as entertainment?
If there is a trend that I worry most about it is the fact that we are losing civility and becoming more course in our collective dialog. And, we are doing it at warp speed. When I watch our political discourse I often wonder if the people running for office are generating the negative rhetoric or simply reflecting what they observe. It would be great if everyone took some time to think about what they read on Twitter or Facebook and did their own fact checking instead of instantly starting to respond…
 
 
 

It is somewhat traditional to wait for a trend to develop before predicting the future but the handwriting is on the wall for Pokemon Go. Some factors are self-evident like the biggest part of the population, the kids, will be soon be in school, the daylight is getting shorter, and winter is coming as well limiting outside treks. But there are at least three parts of the equation that are built in to its self destruction.
First, the game is much too simplistic and repetitive and requires the same strategies to play the game. The challenge is just not real enough for sustained commitment to the simulated altered reality.
Second, the game depends on a solid GPS signal and internet connection as the player travels about. Then it needs the cell phone camera in the augmented reality chase. But, the battery has limitations and many phones just die in the process. To combat this problem, after-market battery packs are being sold to extend the shelf life of the power source.
Third, there is the data usage that is being used to chase the elusive critters. That is fine if you are in a free WiFi location but most players go far afield like cemeteries, abandoned buildings, other peoples property, and other unsavory locations. So, data usage can begin exceed your limit and cost a lot to play a basically mundane game.
I have not even mentioned the distraction of people walking into traffic, congesting meeting locations, pedophiles, and criminals. Maybe these are small components but never the less need to be considered. Having said all of this, there will be players who will become addicted to another waste of time and drain on individual creativity. Perhaps it is better to be walking than sitting in front of a TV or social media screen but in either event, Pokemon Go will be gone. FAD! For A  Day!
 
 

The accuracy of political polling has been trending downward over the last ten years and is now beginning to lose its credibility. Unfortunately it seems that both pundits and the general public seem to feel that polls are reflective of the probable outcome of an event. In fact, most of all of the current political news begins by citing the latest poll, and we now know that there is a strong likelihood that the poll is wrong!
A good example is in the presidential contest of 2012. Pollsters were predicting a virtual tie between Obama and Romney and well known and respected Gallup predicted a Romney win. But Obama won by over 4 % with 5 million more votes. And the problem with poll accuracy is worldwide. Pollsters got the referendum on Scottish independence wrong and it was clearly rejected. But the same problems have been seen in Britain and in Israel. So what has gone wrong with the polling system and does it reflect the same concerns in other polls? Please be aware that I am discounting the fact that 93 % of dentists believe that toothpaste A cleans 98 % better than toothpaste B as marketing BS.
The prevailing wisdom about opinion poll failure seems to come down to the convergence of two events. The first is the growth of cellphones. Ten years ago 6 % of the population relied on cellphones and by 2014 the number was close to 60 % using primarily non-landline communications. In the past, opinion researchers would autodial landlines and if they picked up they went to a live interviewer. But Federal law prohibits autodialing cellphones so researchers have to manually dial landlines and this shifts the outcome. How? The landlines are mostly answered by those over 50 and this leaves out the young and mobile millennials. It also discounts the less affluent and minority population that uses mobile phones only. The other compounding factor with cellphones is that when people move, they take their number with them so following the area code becomes much more problematic. The likelihood of a poll capturing a given part of a state becomes risky at best. So, pollsters use a system of compensation called “weighting” to adjust the results. But that is another can of worms that I don’t want to open in this post!
The second factor involves the continued use and abuse of telemarketers. They have poisoned the well for people who used to answer a landline phone. Even the residents who have added their number to the “Do Not Call” list have discovered that they are not immune to being annoyed by unwanted calls for aluminum siding and lower credit rates. With so many options for telephone marketers to hide their locations, like spoofing, they are difficult to identify and stop. So, people with landlines screen their calls or let them go to answering machines or voicemail.
As far as I am concerned the polls are a waste of time and we will not know who the next president will be until after the election. So, the news programs can continue to present polls in colorful splendor, and I will continue ignoring them. Oh wait! Another two dentists say that toothpaste A really is better. I should start buying that brand…

 
 
 

Distracted drivers are a problem whether they are on the phone, texting, using drugs or alcohol, or just not paying attention. The Center for Disease Control and prevention (CDC) has collected statistics that indicate that there are 9 deaths and over 1,100 injuries in the US every day. And, it is apparent that texting causes many of the problems, as it is continually in the news. So, what is the answer to this problem? Why it’s the textalyzer of course! The textalyzer is analogous to the Breathalyzer ™ which is the roadside device used to test blood alcohol levels of suspected drunk drivers. 
The textalyzer is a portable piece of electronic equipment that is designed to look at a cell phone log to see if texting was being performed preceding or during an accident. It was developed by the Israeli company Cellebrite, the same firm that is believed to have assisted the FBI with the cell phone encryption problem with Apple.
The first legislation has been proposed in New York and is designed to have drivers have their cell phones tested at an accident scene. (New York was also the first state to implement drunk driving laws and field sobriety tests in 1910). But, it seems that we are running into that pesky Fourth Amendment right to privacy:
            “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”.
So, to get around this hurdle the proposed law excludes looking at any data on the phone other than the log activity and time related to the accident. However, Cellebrite already has phone scraping technology so it is still a question as to how the data will be ignored. While trusting people would expect probable cause to look at data and a warrant obtained, I remain skeptical.
And then we get to the really sticky part of the proposed legislation which is implied consent. It is defined as a driver will allow the police access to the phone at the scene of an accident and, if denying that request, will lose the use of their driver’s license. This is the same way that the DUI laws work. So, even if you are parked and are hit by another vehicle, the authorities will have the option of checking your phone.
I have posted entries before about the erosion of privacy and have concluded that we surrender our rights as soon as we get on the internet. (Example: Not reading the long and laborious  “I Agree” documentation when adding software. And the textalyzer is just another step in the trend to have more intrusion. Will this technology stop texting while driving? Sure it will! Just as the laws have stopped drunk driving…
 
 
 

We have all had the opportunity to read some of the comments on any number of websites and seen the stupid, vitriolic, racist, and language deficient feedback to a post entry. Of course some of the responses are on target and belong in the discussion. And, as always, some are simply trolls and bring nothing to the comments but idiocy. YouTube seems to have the largest number of this category and they would rather troll than simply not watch the video.
And, maybe you have seen the “Mean Tweets” on Jimmy Kimmel where celebrities read real tweets that they have received. These tweets are really derogatory but the celebrities make fun of them, but some of these tweets are really hurtful.   And, almost of these comments and tweets are anonymous! And, that really is the problem.
There has been an ongoing trend to have some control of comments on internet sites; particularly, the news organizations that have a real stake in keeping subscribers engaged and involved in important dialog. So, to avoid the anonymous screen name being used, the sites require registration with real names, email addresses, or other traceable data to keep the poster a bit more accountable for their comments. But, the displayed name is still a screen name. Presumably the commenter doesn’t want to be recognized for some reason. But if privacy is the reason, forget it! There are sites that can track screen names via social media sites and connect the dots to identify the poster. And, if there is clear harassment or threats the courts can subpoena the ISP (Internet Service Provider) for the name. But there is clear evidence that we have the right to be anonymous according to the Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (Here) that the First Amendment protects our right to be anonymous:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
So, the trend as I see it is to continue the anonymous screen name for most sites because readers are drawn to the vitriol. It seems to be like rubbernecking at the scene of an accident. We don’t like the idea of an accident but we are drawn to look. Maybe it is simply human nature to read controversial content. But, I will continue to use my real name as I feel strongly that it lends credibility to my comments and I am not going to throw acid at anyone. Here on this site we have very respectful readers and for that I am thankful…
 
 
 

There is a virtual flame war brewing in the world of video production both in the recording and viewing of the moving image. The argument is clearly depicted in the cover image and the prevailing concept is that we have always been “horizontally conditioned” to see things as wider than tall. Most of our experience is based on the fact that our eyes are horizontal and not vertical; movie theaters show wide films not tall ones, and photographs are generally shot in the landscape mode rather than in the portrait direction. But, books have always been vertical as have most written documents as they are 11 inches tall and 8 and ½ inches wide! So, why are we now in such a dither about the “new trend” of vertical video?
Blame it on smart phones! As more videos are produced on these phones and the quality increases, there will be more acceptability for viewing these videos on both the phone and on tablets. Proponents say that it is easier to hold the phone vertically and not horizontally. But, this concept does not translate to a laptop or other wide screen. In fact, these vertical videos are really annoying! There is less visual data and the dark bars distract from easy viewing. However, some sites are now allowing full-screen playback and it is a bit better but the battle will go on.
I believe that a better cause would be to eliminate the videos produced with poor audio quality, complete lack of preparation of the background and editing, lighting, and inane content! So, smile and stand tall!
 

A very recent release from Yale University (YaleNews here) reports that high school students in Connecticut, (Sample size 3,847) are using e-cigarettes to vaporize cannabis or byproducts like hash oil. The study found that nearly one in five e-cigarette users have also vaporized cannabis containing compounds. (Active THC, tetrahydrocannabinol). Later on in the report the authors say that 27.9 % of the students reported nationally are using e-cigarettes for vaping nicotine. Of those users 18.7 % say that they have used e-cigarettes to vaporize marijuana. That is almost 65 %, not one in five. But, that is far from the point I want to make.
The national news media jumped all over the report and reported the “new trend” as alarming. Really? A new trend? I have been reading about this process for at least two years. And from personal sources I have, it has been going on for a lot longer. For example, vendors have been selling e-cigarettes for the explicit use with wax infused THC and marijuana leaves.
So, how do e-cigarettes work and what is their purpose? The use of e-cigarettes is designed to be a safer alternative to smoking real cigarettes. The e-cigarette has a battery that heats a volatile liquid (PEG, polyethylene glycol) that has been infused with nicotine. This, when inhaled, delivers nicotine without the other chemicals associated with cigarettes. Nobody really knows that this delivery system is safe and although the FDA has said that it will set guidelines it has failed to do so. So, the question remains as to whether or not pot laced liquid is also safe or not.
But, liquid THC is readily available and in fact it can be made at home with just and oven, marijuana leaves or buds, PEG, and grain alcohol that is 190 proof (Everclear). One of the advantages for users is that the typical smell of marijuana is much less obvious. Additionally, it appears to look like an e-cigarette and not pot.
I would suggest that the trend is really the legalization of marijuana and not the “new” methods of use. Many states have passed medical marijuana laws and more are considering making pot legal. It seems that the Great Drug War is going about as well as the War on Poverty. When the government gets involved, the problem gets worse. Of course there is always taxation of marijuana which the government can do. Just what we need! More money for the government to waste…

 

There is a growing trend for individuals who are in possession of an extensive digital foot print to consider what will happen to their content after death. Consider how many photos, videos, emails, and relationships that are all contained in the virtual world of the internet. Does all of that information continue to be available or does it slowly lose value and simply go away?

Well, it depends on several factors. There are sites like Facebook and Yahoo that have a memorializing type of services if you choose a legacy setting designating a representative.  But, it would be impossible for another person to aggregate all of your data that is really worth saving. And, that seems to me to be the key to making a decision to continue a digital life after death. However, just to be clear, this does not include sites that honor deceased people that serve as role models used in fund raising for a particular purpose. Those sites are important and are already managed by caretakers.

Currently there are books and sites dedicated to preserving memories and digital information with some associated cost to administer. Others are just guidelines to provide some perspective to the growing problem of the complexity of our digital existence. One site to get an overview is thedigitalbeyond here.

For my own thoughts on the process I would offer the following ideas: First, decide if there are digital contents that are worth preserving. Second, decide if they are worth placing in a secure location on your device. Third, select someone who can follow your wishes to handle these digital contents with your intended wishes. For example, I have spent five years writing this website and believe that there is continued value to keep the content of the five content pages available for some time. So, I have someone who will have access to my site and they can archive the content and decide when the information is no longer of use and close down the account.

This may be the brave new world, a novel written in 1931 by Aldous Huxley that is finally here. Keeping up with technology will be difficult but becomes ever more important. One thing that seems inevitable is that SPAM will continue not matter what else happens…

There are some scams that just seem to be like the common cold as they show up in an annoying cycle. The most recent resurgence is the “We can lower the interest rate on your credit card if you simply pay an small fee upfront and we can give you financial freedom”! They say that they have special relationships with the credit card companies and can reduce the interest rate and save you money. But, it is a scam when it comes to your voice mail or answering machine by robocall.
The fact is that the consumer has as good a relationship with the credit card providers as these scammers. As a customer, it is in the credit card company’s best interest to offer reasonable service. It also a fact that these same companies do not want to lose revenue. So, the consumer is placed in a position of having to be their own advocate. But, the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) has recently added an amendment to their Telemarketing Sales Rule which states that “no debt relief provider can charge upfront charges before providing services”. Any cost has to be placed in an account of a third party and paid out after completion of a satisfactory resolution.
But, this does not stop the telemarketers from using scare tactics and false promises to get you hooked. The “Do Not Call List” is also not immune to allowing these unwanted calls. The FTC has located some of the call centers but they continue to show up on our radar and voice mails.
Unfortunately, I have pressed 1 to talk to a representative and told them to stop calling and they hang up! Press 3 to “opt out” and they still call. My suggestion is to get the NSA involved. They already have everyone’s number and they should treat them as terrorists. Take that Robocaller!