Archive for May, 2007

Suckered by a Spam Text Scam

I got scammed.

I got a text message yesterday that said “Free Msg from Verizon Wireless: We have new calling plans for UNLIMITED text to anyone in the US. Requires new customer agreement. Call 877-256-XXXX. To opt out reply X.”

This type of message is not completely unseen on my phone network. I’ve gotten a few “notice”-type emails in the few years I’ve been with Verizon, so before I even really knew what I was doing, I quickly replied “X” and hit send. And then I saw it: “Sending message to 9000XXX03671″

I realized what had happened. I had just texted 900-XXX-0036. And unfortunately, 900 numbers can charge, according to Verizon up to $25 or more for this type of thing. I IMMEDIATELY dialed 611 to talk to Verizon. Much the same way that if I complain with American Express, they can withhold payment from a merchant, I wondered, can Verizon refuse to square up on what was obviously a spam text scam?

Yes and no, apparently. The helpful rep I spoke with, “Sarah,” told me she could “flag” my account for a follow up when the billing cycle ends, but the agents cannot see live data and couldn’t see a text message within the last few days, let alone minutes. She promised to credit me whatever the message cost.

So I asked her the same question I’m broadcasting now: “Why do cell phone companies allow incoming text messages from 1-900 numbers?” Even if they were limited to just replies it would be an improvement. What possible reason could I have for a 1-900 number to send me an unsolicited message?

Is this the future of cell phone? SMS spam from 1-900 numbers? This is very dangerous ground, and I see where it’s heading: advertising spam (which has already started), “verified” senders, block lists, and finally an option to accept SMS only from your contacts. A new age is upon us. May the people who perpetrate these scams rot in the blackest pits of hell.

But Verizon is going to take care of me this time, and I won’t get suckered again. The moral of the story is: don’t reply to text messages from people who aren’t your contacts, period.

Within seconds of hanging up with Verizon, I got another message from 900XXX003671: “Thank you. If you want to eliminate all future SMS informational and marketing messages from Verizon Wireless, reply Q.”

The Smashing Pumpkins: Things Look Promising

Billy Corgan’s greatest fear, I believe, can be summed up in one word: irrelevance. He got his first taste of that on June 12, 2005, when he released his first solo disc, cryptically entitled “TheFutureEmbrace.” Prior to that misstep, Corgan was frontman of the worldwide sensation Smashing Pumpkins, a band whose contributions helped shaped rock in the 1990s. But for a short period, Corgan, who fancied himself a poet and an artist, looked more like a wannabe college art-student who believes his ramblings profound. Thus, he took out a full page page ad in The Chicago Tribune telling the world his intention to reform The Smashing Punpkins.

Fast forward two years, and here were are, mere weeks before Smashing Pumpkins’ album 6 (or, arguably, 7), “Zeitgeist,” is released. We barely know who is featured on this album beyond Billy and his ever-present cohort, Jimmy Chamberlain, who arguably adds as much to the immediately identifiable Pumpkins’ sound as Billy himself (we learned within the last week that SP now features new members Jeff Schroeder on guitar and Ginger Reyes on bass). This month, the first single, “Tarantula,” was released to radio, and subsequently, the Internet via iTunes. So, what is the verdict? What do we think?

As a huge Pumpkins’ fan dating abck to 1993 and Gish, I have to tell you, my expectations were low. Billy and crew grew increasingly experimental in the last few years, and the final three albums, if you include, Machina II, featured a much different sound than the Pumpkins of years past. Some called it more mature, some called it electronica, others hated it. I have appreciated every album in its own way, although my personal heyday for the Pumpkins’ was Siamese Dream and Mellon Collie.

So imagine my surprise when I heard the new single… and liked it! It sounds like the Pumpkins of old! It actually kinda rocks. The lyrics are mostly unpretenious and the sounds is classic but not dated. Some lyrics are simple and to-the-point tender: “I wanna be there when you’re happy, I wanna love you when you’re sad.” Then a more Pumpkin-y ending with the repeated “I don’t want to be alone!” over and over.

I don’t know what the full length album will bring, but I’m hoping that The Smashing Pumpkins can inject some much needed energy into what, thus far, is a very weak musical landscape in 2007. As long as the music industry keeps offering us neutral foolishness like Linkin Park, Avril Lavigne, Maroon 5, and silly (c)rap with titles like “Buy U A Drank (Shawty Snappin’)” that insult our intelligence, we will be searching for something worthwhile. Listeners aren’t fooled by pallete cleaners like The only quesiton is: will the Pumpkins be the ones to bring it?

Tarantula sample (MP3)
Tarantula sample (OGG)

The Draw, and Inevitable Letdown, of Sequels

This weekend, I saw “Pirates of the Carribean: At World’s End,” the third, and reportedly final (but probably not final) installment in the Pirates of the Carribean franchise. Last weekend, I saw “Shrek the Third” and just weeks ago I saw “Spider-man 3.” I am also excited for The Bourne Ultimatim, another “part 3.” All of these movies were tremendously exciting events for me, but unfortunately, more than anything right now, I feel let down.

The concept of a sequel is genius: take a storyline people love, bring back the characters for another adventure, or feature a new group of characters in the same place or going through the same challenge. Whatever the case is, most sequels are, in essence, “the continuing adventures of…” Sometimes, like with Back to the Future II, Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, or The Empire Strikes Back, the story becomes richer and more intricate. Your audience appreciates this. Sometimes, though, Hollywood thinks we need to be out-thrilled, or further amazed, or that they need to entertain us beyond a quality tale story. I like to say that too often, the story gets lost amongst “the killer phrase.”

The “killer phrase,” as I’ve dubbed it, is ‘bigger and badder.’ It’s a hollow promise. Because ‘bigger and badder’ is never what people want. They just want better. Period.

And nothing is more proof of that than Spider-Man 3. I was so excited for this movie. And, now that I’m a few weeks away from seeing it, I can tell you simply: it sucked. It was terrible. The effects were great, sure. The scene at the top of the building was amazing and my eyes believed everything they saw. As promised, the battles were ‘bigger’, and there were explosions, but the list of problems is endless: the mini-stories were too plentiful and way too short. Fantastic plot devices like the incredible black suit story were ruined because there was too little setup, too little emotional connection, in far too many cases, too little understanding, and universally, too little pay off. Great backstories like the sympathic Flint Marko were lost because of overcrowding. The whole Harry Osborn thing had me screaming, “Couldn’t this idiot butler have had this conversation with Harry like, say, TWO YEARS AGO?!” The entire thing was far too fast without my ever caring about anything or any character. Spidey 3 was everything about Hollywood blockbusters that I hate. And while it may have had the BIGGEST OPENING WEEKEND EVAR!!1!, let’s not forget that it is currently the most expensive movie ever made and it will almost certainly gross less than its two predecessors …and they’re already talking about Spidey 4.

Shrek the Third gave me a few chuckles and was generally a good story, for the most part. It just lost all of the edgy comedy that made Shrek 2 such a scream. So while it may stand better as a kid’s story, that was mostly what it was for me. I laughed a handful of times, but definitely less than 1/10 as much as I did for the second installment. The problem came from a swelling cast of all-stars, a cast that honestly had me unable to identify which character was which anymore after a certain point. Building to the ‘bigger and badder’ tagline made this film boil over.

And Pirates 3, while the best of the bunch, was just shy of 3 hours. There were entire volumes of the film that could have been cut, but inexpicably, weren’t. While it caps off the trilogy, I’d bet my hat it’s not the last we’ll see of Captain Jack. The ridiculousness of the swordfight on the wheel in “Dead Man’s Chest” wasn’t matched in Part 3, thank Science, although there was a very long, trippy sidebar sequence featuring the rescue of Jack Sparrow from the Land of the Dead, replete with hallucination Cap’n Jacks and a series of rocks/crabs that may or may not have been real. Whatever it was meant to be, clearly the goal was to amaze audience, but frankly, the whole of the last two films left me less with “Wow! That was amazing” and more of “Wow! That story could’ve been told in one 2-hour film.”

This is my usual feeling about Hollywood these days. I find films like “The Rise of the Silver Surfer” suck me in only to let me down. Even the Matrix fell to ‘bigger and badder.’ In fact, for me at least, it’s usually something out of the box that I enjoy: most recently Stranger Than Fiction or The Departed. More people left Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” and will leave Michael Moore’s upcoming “Sicko” feeling good about seeing the movie than left Spidey 3 thinking it was worth it.

As we approach Die Hard 4, Bourne 3, Rambo IV, Terminator 4, and zillions of other sequels, I hope they remember this advice: audiences want to be respected. They may see your crappy 100 million dollar movie, but big explosions don’t impress anyone anymore, and while your film may have a 70 million dollar bow, it will likely fall more than 50% in the second week, and even more in week 3. As Waitress, a little indy movie climbs steadily up the charts; LOST – a serialized drama with intellectual science fact as the basis of theories – sits high in the charts; and geeks log off of first person shooters and onto websites to discuss Ron Paul and Mike Gravel, the proof is clear: people want to be challenged and they want to be respected. When Hollywood stops pretending to offer quality and starts actually offering the moviegoing public real stories that make people feel happy, or sad, or connected, or just good about being alive – then people will respect the movies again.

When Is A Spoiler No Longer a Spoiler?

There is currently a headline on Digg today entitled “LOST’s Producer Breaks “Radio Silence” to Reveal Why Charlie Died and More.” If you read the comment (which on Digg, are all too frequently inane rants rolled with inside jokes), you’l see the poor submitter getting roasted for his title, which includes a “spoiler.” Wikipedia calls a spoiler “A spoiler is a summary or description of a narrative (or part of a narrative) that relates plot elements not revealed early in the narrative itself.

In colloquial use, a spoiler is revealing something either as yet unrevealed or any major plot twist. Today is Saturday and people are complaining that the headline contains a spoiler, that Charlie died. Forget for a moment that anyone who has seen Lost in the last few months knew this moment was coming – my question is, “is this actually a spoiler?”

By strictist definition, Darth Vader being revealed as Luke’s father is a spoiler, despite its presence as a pop culture reference. By loosest definition, spoilers are revealed every day.

First off, the submitter on Digg was quoting an article on E Online, which, for the record, shared the same title. Secondly, well over 1,000 people dugg it up – do they not share any blame. And thirdly, is this even a spoiler? This information was in several online articles the day after the Wednesday finale.

The fact is, nearly every major news outlet “spoiled” American Idol within a day of the finale, but I didn’t hear people complaining about that. And although I’ve heard people say “Digg isn’t just for the US, and other places are broadcast behind you,” ABC does share the full length episodes on their website and… well… this is the INTERNET! It’s the age of instantaneous information.

So what is an acceptable amount of time to wait before something is no longer a spoiler? I believe spoilers are real time only for TV, and pretty close to it for movies. It would’ve been a spoiler on Wednesday day or before, but once the episode airs, it’s no longer a spoiler. And if you don’t want to know, stay off the internet, certainly sites that will features reviews of a show that is very popular.

Movies are close to real time; it’s bad class to give away the twist to a movie, but how long until people generally know the twist? Is “The Sixth Sense” still fooling anyone?

Spoilers are only spoilers until the general public gets access. Then, I’m afraid, it’s every man for himself. You are responsible for navigating yourself away from the data you’re trying to avoid, because the world doesn’t owe it to you to not discuss something popular because you didn’t get a chance to watch it.

LOLPresidents

Much like the internet phenomenon “LOLcats,” comes today’s Fark featurette, “LOLPresidents.” Check them out:

Heroes vs. Lost

Today, blog after blog will be discussing the season finale of Lost and a great many of them will be comparing it to Heroes. So I’m going to contribute to the fray with my comparison. Read more for the details.
More >

firsttube.com Link Blog Now Has an RSS Feed

I post to the “firsttube.com link blog” throughout the day. The entries are VERY brief and I am going to try to be descriptive about each link. So, if you are intested, here is an RSS feed for the firsttube.com link blog. The link blog is also accessible here.

EW.com is a Terrible Website, Continued

EW.com doesn’t work for me anymore in Opera. At least, not properly. In their “TV Watch” section, the comments are an inserted iframe that is built via javascript. This is the script that does it:

<script type="text/javascript">
var boardUnrounded = Math.random() * 10000000000;
var boardRounded = Math.floor(boardUnrounded);
var boardDisplayPath = "http://epoche.ew.com/articles/comments?article_key=20039591&brand_key=3&
article_title=Things+Fall+Apart&rand=" + boardRounded; // alert( boardDisplayPath );
document.write( '[iframe id="iframe" src="' + boardDisplayPath + '" width="0" height="0"' );
document.write( 'style="position: fixed; top: -1000px; left:-1000px;"' );
document.write( '][/iframe]' );
</script>

Notice how the alert() function commented out, but still there; some sloppy debugging left around for us. Notice how the comments are loaded dynamically. What is the purpose of this? Why the random number? Could it be to ensure refreshes on each page load? Either way, between document.write and the iframe, the page consistently renders around the comments, and then the comments come smashing in. Except in Opera, when they simple don’t show up at all.

There are also javascript errors by default in the normal page load, IE chokes on some ad code, and Opera modifies the javscript over and over to make it not crash, and their CSS is a mess. In short, the entire thing is ridiculous. I don’t understand why they chose such a complex and useless path to code. Certainly I’ve seen plenty of sites that do much more traffic that have not opted to make their code a complete mess like this.

EW.com is a disaster and is a total disappointment. I’ve renewed EW for the last time. I intend to explain to them exactly why I’m cancelling my subscription too.

It just goes to show that users really do pay attention to little details on your website, and in this case, they are going to lose a paying paper subscriber due to sloppy, pointless, poor web design.

Is this Damon Lindeloff… at Camp?

I went to camp in Pennsylvania in the late 1980s, and I was friends with many people there, most of whom are now mere memories. But several years later, I somehow found a Yahoo! Group with many of my fellow campers, and then I built a website for the camp alumni. After a server crash in December 05, one for which I was completely unprepared, sadly, I lost most of the data.

So in the last week, I finally got around to rebuilding everything, but rather than host the photos, I decided to create a group on Flickr. I posted all of my camp pics. Many are of people I was once friends with, but have long since lost touch with, or worse, forgotten.

Imagine my surprise when I got an email from an old counselor who wrote to tell me “the “some dude” posted in your pictures is Damon Lindeloff. The same Damon Lindeloff that is co-creator of the TV Show – Lost.


(c) 1990, Adam Scheinberg, some_dude.jpg, originally uploaded by Adam and Jennifer.

Damon Lindelof I thought to myself – really? So I did a quick scan over to google images to check out what Damon Lindelof looks like. Lo and behold, it looks just like him (see image on left). And he’s the right age, born in ‘73. And he is from New Jersey – my camp was mostly people from NJ and NY. So, this is very likely Damon Lindelof, one of the main writers of Lost, and at some point, at least, I was obviously friends with him. Kinda cool.

Update: Added “now” picture locally.

EW.com is a Terrible Website

If you want an example of how NOT to write a website, go no further than the disasterous ew.com. Entertainment Weekly is a magazine to which I subscribe. It contains generally good interviews and articles about TV, movies, books, and all sorts of other cultural phenomena. For a long time, one of the more compelling aspects of the subscription was the website, which includes the oft updated “Pop Watch Blog” and the daily “TV Watch” section.

First, let’s examine the URLs. From time to time, I want to email someone a link to an interesting piece. It would be nice to say “ew.com/tvwatch.” But alas, that doesn’t work.

This cryptic URL scheme is often used by big companies, but sucks for search engine standing: http://www.ew.com/ew/tv/tv_watch/0,,,00.html is a valid URL. So let’s review:

http://www.ew.com -> base URL
/ew/ -> a servlet, perhaps?
/tv/ -> a subdirectory, or an argument?
/tv_watch/ -> same as above…
0,,,00.html -> why God, why?

Aside from this, the webmasters decided to use two different commenting systems in the site, one for the Pop Watch Blog and one for TV watch and other articles. At least one is based on Typead, and it sucks with a capital SUCKS. It filtered out words like “Peter,” which makes for a silly looking post when you’re commenting on the main character on Heroes, Peter Petrelli. It also thinks all sorts of comments are spam, and tells you so, even when your post is completely legit. To post, you often have to play a game where you go back and tweak and re-submit, over and over, ad nauseum. This leads to about 50% successful posts, 50% gave up trying.

Then their TV Watch boards — they’re so bad I don’t even know where to begin. Posting is a complete hit or miss. You’d submit a post, it would go through a magical redirection and then your post would be gone. The back button wouldn’t work. And if you tricked it back, the textarea would be emptied. You could post over and over and it would give no explanation of what happened or why the post was declined. Every single item would be 3 legit posts followed by “this board sucks.” It got so bad it was unusable.

And finally, EW heard us. I thought.

They took their boards offline for 4 days. FOUR DAYS. Their board consists of only two fields: name and post. This is four fields in a database: id, time, name, text. If you want, “isVisible.” The boards are unthreaded. There is no HTML at all permitted. This should’ve taken a competent programmer about 1 day, perhaps hours at best. But for EW.com, after 4 days, what they released is still a giant stinker. Check out today’s American Idol review. If the comments come up at all (embedded in an iframe, for some reason, that may or may not load for you), nearly every comment is littered with “****” in the middle of words or in between them. Nothing is actually censored, mind you, it’s just a silly, stupid bug that should have been noticed early on. And long lines don’t wrap, they just keep going and create a horizontal screen scroller.

EW.com is a terrible website. It’s poorly designed. It’s poorly architechted. The page titles suck and make it hard to share links. The boards are terrible and unreliable. Outgoing links are all encapsulated in Javascript – so middle click is broken. If EW had any sense, they’d fire the entire web development staff and hire new people who can fix the complete mess that is their online presence.

I will be moving over to E! for my daily celebrity/entertainment/trash news. And I am very seriously considering cancelling my EW subscription.