I went out against my will and spent much more money than I really wanted to.
I met a good friend, but I would have liked to meet him in a better condition.

There is one thing I don't regret at all though, seeing the Crowd of Jakarta locking Jalan Sudirman, on of the city's major arteries, old and young alike around midnight.

For those who don't know yet what a crowd might look like, here, photos and a video :

Indonesian former President GusDur just passed away, and the news is going through the web like a knife through hot butter.
Twitter is NOT a localized service, but THIS is what happens when Indonesian people carry a buzz:

Indonesian community is often overlooked when it comes to web and IT, but the technology gap is rapidly filling up, and we'll probably be in for a surprise during the next couple of years.

Gitu aja kok repot toh twitter? ;) Rest in peace, Mr. GusDur.

Update, 20.30

Follow me on Twitter

Here are some of my views, again, about Google and its possible future, and no, they are not 'good guys'.

• Google has become a quasi monopolistic instance on the internet
• The FCC has noticed it and they are now thinking about 'search neutrality'
• No, Google are not such good guys, neither that innovative, and tend to buy everything they can to crush the concurrence, or to bypass their search own algorithms to promote their products
• Not only the FCC has noticed that, but some devs are getting worried too
• Their relevance is less and less a fact, and they might be outsmarted by social networking websites
• Not long until a broader public notices it
• Still, going open would clean all this mess

If you've had the luck to spend some of you bits of boredom reading this blog, you probably know that I like to follow Google's strategies and evolution. You also probably know it somewhat worries me, even if I'm still enthused by their product.

It's too bad I'm publishing this post now, since everybody is busy with end-of-the-year-festivities and nobody will notice the fabulous article I am linking here: Search, but You May Not Find (nytimes.com)

It's all about search neutrality, or how Google, Yahoo and Bing are now "the gatekeepers of the internet". How it can unbalance the market and how someone should do something about it.

It begins on this cheerful note (bold is mine):

The need for search neutrality is particularly pressing because so much market power lies in the hands of one company: Google. With 71 percent of the United States search market (and 90 percent in Britain), Google’s dominance of both search and search advertising gives it overwhelming control. Google’s revenues exceeded $21 billion last year, but this pales next to the hundreds of billions of dollars of other companies’ revenues that Google controls indirectly through its search results and sponsored links.

Ok, until now nothing really new, we already know Google is very big. The sponsored links and search result part is maybe a bit less obvious, since many users are now tending to think that Google is the Internet. Think about it, not only G (I'll call it G yes, I feel lazy tonight) has contributed to create some huge fortunes, but there is now a whole market of SEO consulting and optimization entirely centered on them. Frightening bit, when you think about the metric cartload of so called "SEO specialist", Black Hat SEO pseudo hackers, content and link farms gravitating around it. G has an enormous influence on the economy both above and underground, and if you're in IT, you probably owe it your job, a way or another.

Ok, this bit is secured, pretty glad it was obvious.Next:

Another way that Google exploits its control is through preferential placement [..]promoting its own services at or near the top of its search results, bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the services of others[...] Wherever it does so, incumbents are toppled, new entrants are suppressed and innovation is imperiled.[...]Some will argue that Google is itself so innovative that we needn’t worry. But the company isn’t as innovative as it is regularly given credit for[...]Google’s meteoric success, are essentially borrowed inventions: Google acquired AdSense by purchasing Applied Semantics in 2003; and AdWords, though developed by Google, is used under license from its inventors, Overture.

NICE TO KNOW! And nice to know I'm not a lunatic, the whole article make me feel I'm not alone, and this bit precisely, makes me feel that I'm right to worry.
That's one thing if Google is what it pretends to be, (that is: an open and innovative search engine pushing everyday the limits of information gathering and usability), and another thing altogether when it appears that the G is a buy-and-squash machine, intending to become the one vortex to any info hosted,shared, advertised or created on the web, from anywhere.

You can perfectly react thinking that, after all, they are offering a free service and no company should rely on free services (yeahright), that after all, they have the right to advertise their own product (it's not like they were, say, Microsoft and bundling, say, a browser with their operating system). And well, if people are so worried, people shall build their own monopolistic search engine.

Thinking like that would be logical, but no thank you. Be it with OS, Telecoms or search engines, monopole is bad.

From this point, how is the future branching?

G's core functionality is slowly but surely losing its appeal, losing relevance everyday while being submerged by content/link farms, domain parkers ands the likes. Users are more and more accustomed to seek information through social networking rather than organic search. Online marketers are aware of that.
Big Daddy G has also proven to be hungry enough to worry the FCC, that's almost an epiphany.
Until now, all they needed to do in order to prove the 'purity' of their policies was to hurl widgets at the crowd while screaming "We are no evil!". FCC is bad publicity, they will have to work harder.
If nothing is done, they could leave the lead to other runner-ups such as Cuil and "the word of the fingers". Worse, some developers are being seriously annoyed by their API policy and the word could spread pretty fast, leaving them without another major source of innovation.
See by yourself (readwriteweb.com and totlol.com)

Google releases a public API. They watch what third-party developers do with the API and modify the Terms of Service (ToS) for that API in a way that prevents breakthrough potential. Google may then move to offer a similar service based on their platform rather than the API.

That, dear sir, is a pissed-off developer talking from experience.

In order to regain the relevance they build their reputation upon, going social would be a great idea. It would also, if the FCC rules out for a search neutrality regulation, reinforce the hegemony driven image they are starting to acquire.

What they could do though, to get rid of any suspicions and confirm their good will toward the users and the Quality Of The Interwebs, is to go 100% open, even if they don't really seem to like the idea.

Year 2010 will be interesting. Wait and see.

Follow me on Twitter

This Christmas, Amazon have been selling more kindle than physical books.

For those who still don't know the kindle is an e-book reader, you can access to an online library and download your e-books, and do everything you'd to usually except maybe reading in the bath.
I hate the product, deeply, due to very shady terms of use, I've blogged about it before.

It kills me to know that while privacy is becoming a major topic, which will probably be buzzing all around the web in 2010, people still fall for a device that spies on everything you read.

According to the chart on eff.org, the Kindle is not the only guilty one here, Google Books and the BnB Nook are also sharing information about your readings... to third party service providers.

Who are the third party service providers? I just wish it's not a potential future Independent Bureau Of Thought Correctness...

Well, just wait, see, and hope New Moon is never made illegal.

Follow me on Twitter

Starting from 2010, domain names will be able to contain non-Latin characters, such a HOBЫЙyЧеНЫЙ.pф. Real joy to type.

I'll make it short first if you don't have time to read everything:

• Languages are a major barrier in communication
• You shouldn't fragment the web more than it already is
• Non-Latin characters are a pain in the neck to type
• If there is a shortage of URLs, why not adding domain types like .portal, .cloud, .blog ?

That initiative is... probably not a good one.

Yesterday, alone in my little room, I caught myself thinking of how it would be shall we come in contact with an evolved specie not using oral or written communication. Of course this specie would be transient and every unit would act as the whole... if you read science fiction you've probably read things like that before...

The point is, the more I thought about it and the more I thought that the language barrier is one of the most serious hindrances when it comes to communication. That specie would be baffled by the difficulties we have to overcome in order to deliver a clear message.
How can you even go as far as "Please explain me" when you don't even know how to say or write it?
Today, when someone can fluently speak more than one language, this person is considered gifted. Being one of those lucky speakers, I can assure you that one more language in your pocket can give you an infinity of new possibilities.

The interwebz is a place where knowledge (at least information... at least noise) is supposed to be global, or at least tends to be so. The standards on which it's built are one of the leading factors, but the predominance of only a couple of languages worldwide (not only for the web) is another. But finding non-Latin content is still tricky.

Now let say I want to look for the lyrics of a Russian song I really like. Russian doesn't have yet a standardized transliteration, as far as I know, and making a search with Latin alphabet will get pretty hard, considering that I've seen 'good' transliterated as 'horoshe' 'harasho' 'harosho' and so on and so forth. I've done it before and I usually have to try and fail several time, waiting for a Cyrillic version to come up the search results, copy and paste in the search field and find my way in. Of course my Russian is far from fluent, and it takes me ages to get what I want.

This is just a small example, and well, when doing so I'm really getting what I'm asking for.
But what about real knowledge/technical sharing? Have you ever operated a Mandarin or Russian version of Windows? Do you know how much of a pain it is? Do you really want to extend this pain to the web?

I don't. I don't want to have to remember a Cyrillic url, or worse, a traditional Chinese one, I can't even type it!

If you're short on URLs, all the domain names being virtually all taken or parked, well, extend the domain types.
I would rather have to deal with danny-fr.perso.fr or tsugoidane.portal.jp than großebusiness.de
(and I had to open a FAQ to type the ß, I'm typing from a mac and don't have my dear charmap)

Follow me on Twitter

Google have spoken about openness. Basically they agree to be open as long as it's not about their search algorithm or their secret back end. Makes sense.
After having read this article at The Register, one thought is slowly forming on the top of my head.

As I have been writing somewhere earlier, Google tends to become the favorite toy in the hands of links/content farms, and I have to insist on the fact that I'm actually using it less and less when it comes to searching.

Google's main argument about not opening their sources is that it would give key information to black hats and spammer to manipulate their algorithm and bias the search rankings.
Another argument is that they simply don't want to give away the product of ten years of hard labor.

What could actually happen if Google DID go full open?
Probably both argument would turn out to be true, but in the end I tend to think that it would enhance user's browsing experience, simply because once an algorithm is supported by a whole open source community, it benefits from the smarts of hundreds more people. Yes black hats would go at it, but fixes would eventually come and anyway in case you didn't notice, spammer are ALREADY at it.

Now, in a context where users tend to rediscover to power of social interaction, and where the word of the fingers is slowly replacing the world of the mouth, search engine might quickly become a 2nd or 3rd grade facility if they don't find a way to adapt this current change of trend.

Would they actually take the dare?
Maybe. I don't think their current attempt at becoming the internet's major hub will benefit any freezing of their policies after the launch of Chrome OS. They will by then be everywhere, and do mostly everything, and they will need to keep up the good work, harder than ever before... what's better than some hundreds/thousands extra heads for that?

Follow me on Twitter

Here is a long post, so I'll get to the bullets:

• People worry about online privacy
• Social media profiling could cost you your job for a nice week end bender
• Social media profiling could cost you your job for things you'd thing completely normal
• The law should grant online privacy the same status as IRL privacy
• The creation of a unique online ID could help

Few days after facebook changed its privacy policy, I've seen various reactions around the web and outside. When some people don't really care, some other are concerned enough to write "Is Social Media Privacy an Oxymoron?"

I've read it twice. And if I agree with some of what's written, I must say that the tone is much too optimistic to my taste.

I never had a tattoo, facial piercing or crazy haircut knowing that these would be a no-no for any future job seeking.
Nonetheless I like playing with my appearance. Every now and then I make silly faces, I dress up or I take cheesy poses, Rarely, very very rarely I drink myself silly (doesn't take much effort, I can't drink). Also, I don't chose my friends for their social status or their political inclinations, and I don't feel ashamed of being seen with them. I have many female friends, just friends, and sometimes we hug, and gay friends, and sometimes we hug too.

Two keywords when it comes to social media: fun and common sense. Have plenty of both.

That's where the problem is. Where does common sense and fun begin and when do they end to leave only downright shameful moments?

See this scenario:

On Friday night, I've had a terrible week and my mood belly flopping on a historical low, a friend of mine invites me to a quiet cafe to have a drink. Then, well, you know how it goes, and we end up in a much less reputable cafe, I've had my 3 beers (enough to make me really drunk) and I'm pole dancing with a girl I don't know and her gay buddy.
It's my absolute right.
Flashy flashy, a picture is taken and tagged on Facebook.
I sleep all the week end, not only because of the party but also because of my 70 work ours of last week, and on Monday I'm the freshest to go to work.
Mister Big Boss asks me in his office, he's seen my pics, he doesn't like drunk bent pole dancing.I slept, I didn't un-tag my pic, Ooops.

What's wrong in this case is the fact that I have the right to do whatever I want outside working hours, and that my private life belongs to me only. As long as I'm not breaking the law, sorry Boss, but you have no rights. Or you shouldn't have.

This scenario is already disturbing. But it could be worse.

See this one:

On a workday, I'll spend my evening with my best female friend, her gay friend, in a gay bar. The evening will be spent drinking juice, making silly jokes, and I'll tenderly hug my female friend and bear hug my gay friend as a good bye. Clickety clickety, photos, Facebook. I don't see why I should remove them.
The day after, job interview.
Tough luck, the HR person is secretly homophobic, and no, the HR person doesn't like my silly faces, and anyway I'm hugging that person who's not my wife, I am probably a heathen fornicator. No job for me.

That's where it becomes truly dangerous.

Laws have been created to make the office a place where people should work without having to be worried by their sexual/political/entertainment-al preferences. It's not always the case, but I don't think that, until now, any HR would ask you "Was this person you hugged your brother or are you gay? Was this woman you hugged your wife? Will you be so exuberant in you cubicle?". Mainly because it's probably not common practice yet, but also because they wouldn't have any pretext to ask.

In the first example, I haven't even uploaded the pics myself, a friend with lousy privacy settings did. In the second example, I uploaded pics seemingly harmless, and in both case, damn, it's my life there, I'm allowed, by law, to do these kind of things.

Fun and Common Sense are two concepts too often missing in some people, and lest we are careful we might see the rise of a dangerous kind of internet bigotry.

What to do then?

Simply forbid people you don't want nosing in your stuff from accessing your online personal data, the same way they can't enter your room and look for your stash of hidden pr0n.

A unique, legal and standardized online identity, granting legally you the same privacy right as in real life should take care of that.

Let's root for it, wait, and see.

Follow me on Twitter

I finally got an invite to Google Wave.

You'd figure that such a busy internet body as myself would get it at once, but well, sometimes I'm just slow.

But there are two things I've seen in Google wave.
The wave is going to wash twitter away, and turn Google social, in the blink of an eye.

As I explain in my last post, the web is getting crowed and users tend to seek information as they would do IRL, that is, asking their friends, and their friend's friends, trying to do their best to organize and and skim the flow.
Twitter is still booming because it's the first tool allowing users to freely share any bit of information without further ado, but users will soon have to face the information overflow and the sharing limitations, then realize that they need something a notch higher.

What Twitter lacks (length, attachments, organized replies and so on...), Google Wave has it all, in real time, as easy as a drag and drop to upload your file.
What we call a "tweet" today, they call it a wave, and it's an entire conversation, manageable and editable, including as many members as you want, and yes, sharable, and yes tagg-able, and yes search-able and whatever-else-able with extensions and widgets.

And oh so much more noise. But we all like noise don't we? And you can edit comments almost anonymously, right, and you can't search for people not in your contact list, right?
And Google is not gonna let it happen in the final version...right?

But then again, I could be wrong. Wait and see.

Follow me on Twitter

"Google it, you idiot!"

How often have you heard more or less polite version of this sentence?

That's clear enough, if you are looking for something, just search for it using google, and you're sure to find heaven and its rivers of milk.

Or not.

One of the most blatant example I can find is the dishwasher search, that will lead you to the infamous about.com and provide you with a short, uninteresting and irrelevant short article about the dishwasher's inventor.

Try any search with 'best' as a keyword, and you'll realize that there are jazilions of review websites out there waiting to bait you with their "10 best" "20 best" and "1589635 best" lists.

These results are rendered possible by the convergence of two technologies: Google PageRanks and content farms. The web is becoming crowded with irrelevent, cheap content, written only in order to make you click on a bunch of adds.

Now, what motivates me to write as-relevant-as-possible articles in this blog is nothing but my interest for the IT world and my hyperactivity. Since I need to get some input to produce my fantastic analysis, I need reliable sources, or at least seemingly reliable. Stuff that make sense.

How do I get it?

I know about website A, in which John.D, from website B commented. Therefore I will pay a visit to website B and see what I can get from there... following my gentle web-walk, I will notice the interesting content, subsicribe to the RSS, follow it on Twitter, and my source DB will build up, slow but sure.

That's it.

I'm not using google to search. Not anymore. Because I know what I am looking for, and I know that most of the time, I'll find a content farm's produce. Now I turn to social sites and functionalities, like many of us.

Some are ranting about it, and I understand, since irrelevant content based of volume has become a real problem for the users.

But hey. The web is its own echosystem, and its parasites will soon be overcome. Users will soon be aware of the little "comment", "remove" and "promote" buttons integrated to their search result, and google is gonna turn social, since I've never seen it yet embrace a technology without wanting to use it for itlself.

That's how the web goes: chaos, organized chaos, order, new kind of chaos and so on...

But maybe I'm wrong. Wait and see...