I am embarrassed to say that I've seen so many reruns that Rachel and Ross have given conflicting birthdays in different episodes. For example, in The One With Joey's New Girlfriend, Rachel tells Gunther her birthday is May 5th, but in the episode where she's pulled over in Monica's Porsche by Sergeant Sagittarius, it's stated that she is in fact an Aquarius.
When Ross starts to mention his birthday to Gunther, he only gets to "December..." before Gunther storms off, blatantly caring only about his creepy infatuation with Rachel. Episodes later, Ross claims his birthday as a specific date in October that would make him a Libra. I can't remember the exact date at this millisecond in time, but when I heard it, I cross-checked a Zodiac website to see if that would make him a Libra because I'm sick and need help.
I know I blame a galaxy full of problems on my mother, but I'm not going to dismiss this opportunity to blame this one on her as well. As my friend Brian would say, "Here's some deep-seated psychosis, ya'll! Pull up a chair."
I remember clapping along (well, the four claps) to the Friends theme song with my mom before I was even old enough to understand the condom jokes. When Chandler regretted buying that 12-pack of condoms is when my mom explained, "it's a balloon thing that the man puts on his penis to have sex." I still laugh every time Chandler has his regrets about the dozen condoms. And now, I even understand why men need balloon things to have sex. I also know that thinner balloon things are for the better, but that's besides the point I'm making here people.
The point is, not one person should know that Friends airs on CW, TBS and Nickelodeon every weekday, nor should they be able to recite the lineup. I won't recite the lineup per channel, but I will say that I am strangely proud of being one in a crowd that realizes when Nickelodeon stops airing Friends 11:00 pm - 1:00 am, so it can start airing That 70's Show 12:00 am - 1:00 am instead. That shit only lasted a week before the two-hour Friends mini-marathon returned every night.
And that's why there should be sitcom psyche wards.
1.24.2012
Why the new Facebook Timeline is another shining example of privacy invasion that people will continue to put up with
Once again, a new Facebook feature is clogging the intellect of my Twitter newsfeed. I like Twitter because I can follow things that actually stimulate brain activity, versus mindlessly Liking things for a millisecond of satisfaction via clickery. I enjoy tracking news sources that can teach me things or people that have mastered the art of 140 character quips. Unfortunately, Facebook is of great public interest because the universe is tied into it, so whenever a new feature breaks through and stirs the ant farm, I still have to hear about it.
As I've said for over a year, Facebook is the ultimate invasion of privacy. Malware that looks like fun. Spyware that comes in a fun package. Like buttons, games, a vortex of photos that your friends and friends of friends of friends who you haven't spoken to since high school can see, unless you have your privacy settings tweaked perfectly (and sometimes even that doesn't matter).
And here comes the Facebook Timeline. The definitive archive of every move made by each Facebook user, in a neat package to sift through with ease, stapled to profile pages. Don't like the idea? Too bad, so sad.
In a nutshell, the Timeline will organize everything that's ever touched your profile, in chronological order, starting the day you birthed that Facebook profile baby that you now wish you could smother to death with a squeaky giraffe pillow.
Before the new Timeline feature "rolls out" or "goes live," users are given a seven day period to activate the feature themselves, allowing them to edit their personal information before others can see it.
Isn't that sweet? Mark Zuckerberg is allowing users to be proactive with their own information before Facebook does whatever it wants with it. Cool.
Aside from the FTC investigations and gargantuan contradiction that Facebook is as a whole, I keep hearing the same arguments and reasoning from users alike.
"What's the difference? It's all out there anyway." - Everyone
"Well, people should be more careful about what they post online." - Everyone
"What? That's crap! I'm leaving Facebook.
Wait, who just liked my status about Pita Chips? Oh yeaaaah!" - Everyone
Minus the guy with the Pita Chips, both are valid points. However, the word we're looking for here is control.
Control within a personal, social website that encourages you to have fun with it. Control of your online identity. Control of what people see and how they see it on your own page. To say people should be more careful about their posts is irrelevant. If I've posted nothing but photos of kittens and smiley faces since the day I subscribed to Facebook, then that is my information to control on Facebook. Until now.
Facebook has morphed into a monstrous online trigger for omnipresent cognitive dissonance. People find themselves hating it, threatening to leave it, dealing with it, learning to love it once more and moving along until the next uproar. To compare Facebook to a domestic violence case would be a little ridiculous; I'd prefer the term rape. Rape that starts in a back alley of Palo Alto that permeates through your veins, eyes, guts, ears and keyboard until they spill onto the screen of a friend of a friend of a friend's iPhone. You're Liked. Tagged. Notified. Poked. Messaged. Invited. Requested. Information sequestered.
The Facebook Timeline is coming and it's here to stay. For those of you who give your profile no permission to be used in advertisements, wake the fuck up. You are one.
Learn to Like it.
1.20.2012
My my life is a bad comedy. And I'm tired of starring in it.
From now on, I'm going to act on my predictions and ideas when they come to me, instead of spending a month+ wavering between whether or not my idea may or may not be stupid for the may or may not be... intended audience. Today is the pickle on my shit sandwich of journalist motivation and pace of work. Here's why:
For months, I've been mulling over an article idea about cereals. It started at a grocery store in La Spezia, Italy, where I spotted my new favorite cereal that I would never see again in this country. I won't go into specifics, but this one cereal was intended to be the "star" of the article - delicious morsels that aren't, in fact, available here in the United States. I was going to accompany my words with a sweet infographic and even t-shirt ideas for the publication I was pitching this to - a great magazine in New York. My article plus extra mile of face-melting graphics and ideas for the company were going to come with a side of desperation and a plea for that once in a lifetime internship, the one that could put me on the map or at least give me a good beginning for the memoir I would write when I'm 75 and have gone nowhere due to my lack of haste. But excellent ideas aside, today I decide to go shopping at Target, an establishment which has earned my utmost respect in terms of bomb-ass deals on juices and snacky food (and even frozen veggies if you catch them on a good day).
This is the point where I will ask one question and those who formulate a correct answer can move on.
* At Nicole's trip to Target, did she:
A). Run into an awkward ex
B). Run into an awkward ex who had the same idea for a story pitch to the same magazine
C). Purchase a giant plastic bear filled with animal crackers for $4.97
D). Stroll down the cereal aisle only to find that the United States is now mass producing the intended star of her magazine pitch and selling them everywhere.
Sorry, the correct answers we were looking for were C and D. For those of you who are moving on, I know you Christmastree'd it. Be ashamed.
As a Capricorn with an estranged sense of intuition, I know what you're thinking, so don't worry. Yes, I could still continue with my pitch idea minus the cereal that I was most passionate writing about. Yes, I could think of an entirely new idea and try to work on that. Yes, life will go on and within the next hour I will have changed into my fudge-stained Candy Kitchen t-shirt and be on my way to lift waffle cones into walking corpses' faces like a programmed cyborg. Yes, that will be $2.90 and $3.10 with tax. Two singles? $6.21 with tax. No we don't have senior discounts. Why should you pay less just because your skin is fucking ancient?
Life is gross.
12.25.2011
Why Twitter > Facebook.
Twitter connects users based on thoughts and brain cells. Facebook connects people who Like the same brand of pants. - Nicole D. Miller
These are my words. Mark them. I've debated this issue multiple times from a buffet line of angles with a melting pot of people. The conversations always go a little something like this:
"Why do you like Twitter, Nicole? I think Twitter is stupid."
Me: Do you know how to use it?
"No."
Me: It's much different from Facebook. Instead of waiting for someone to comment on your status or tag you at the latest bar scene, people on Twitter are busy learning from the feeds they are subscribed, connecting with people who share the same thoughts and ideas or talking to public figures who would have never noticed their existence if it wasn't for the unique Twitter format.
"So what? Facebook can do that too."
Me: Maybe. But is Jim Carrey really updating the Jim Carrey Facebook page? Considering the fact that his Facebook Biography was posted via Wikipedia, I think that's a big fat no. But he sure does have 73,650 Likes, while 616 Facebook users are currently talking about him. I would rather follow him on Twitter and read his kooky Tweets with random photos of himself instead of connect with a giant Facebook advertisement for Jim Carrey.
"Yeah right. It's probably not really Jim Carrey! How do you know?"
Me: Because it's an official Twitter account for Jim Carrey. See the blue check mark and photos he has posted of himself? And look at the Tweets. Entertaining opinions and silly, custom Jim Carrey emoticons. Not career plugs.
"Good point. Are there other famous people on Twitter?"
Me: Yes! For example, Jonah Hill is an avid Tweeter. Once in awhile, he'll cue his followers to Tweet him rapid-fire questions about anything and he answers any questions for a certain number of minutes. That's fun. Even publications like USA Today reach out to Twitter users. One day I got into a discussion with @USATodaytech about Facebook and they were talking to me personally. On Christmas morning I Tweeted a photograph to a company called Quirky. The photo was of my grandma opening a Quirky product on Christmas morning and my Tweet/photo was Retweeted by the founder and CEO of Quirky, Ben Kaufman. Twitter is a great way to get noticed by public figures or celebrities.
"But you only get 140 characters to say something! How lame is that? Facebook doesn't give you a small limit for status updates."
Me: That's because Twitter trims the fat from what people are trying to say and get out in the world. Do you really want someone to drone on and on about their cat and inject that into your newsfeed?
"No."
Me: But they can on Facebook. At least Twitter will cut them off by the time they get to the cute way the cat sleeps. Then, Twitter connects that person with other users who use cat-related hashtags.
"Facebook gives you more characters per status update. I would say this allows for more creativity and mental stimulation!"
Me: And you are very much entitled to that opinion. However, writing clear and concise sentences is not easy. If it was, everybody would have a journalism degree. Twitter forces people to be short and sweet. This relates back to my point about Twitter stimulating more brain cell use than Facebook, where people partake in the near-limitless droning.
"Well either way, social networks are all the same! Friends and followers. Photos and updates."
Me: Yes, you can Tweet photographs of random things on Twitter. Keyword: Random. Most likely, the photograph is related to the 140 characters you're Tweeting with it, making it relevant to thoughts and conversation. No, Twitter does not let you upload entire photo albums or tag people in photographs in which they never wanted to be digitally connected with in the first place. Friends vs. followers is also debatable. Think of followers as your audience. Your followers are actually interested in what you have to think and say - the entire point of Twitter. Gaining Facebook 'friends' can be forced and awkward, as they request your permission to form a digital friendship for all to see. And even so, is what they're saying really that interesting or thought-provoking? What if it's someone you haven't spoken to since high school and never really liked? Do you accept them and put up with their digital life that has now meshed with yours? Do you accept them as a 'friend' and then hide their posts in your feed to keep your sanity without offending them? Do you deny them and feel like a jerk for being mean to a possible new 'friend'? On Twitter, they can follow you or unfollow you and vice versa. You can make everything public or make everything private, where followers would have to request to follow you. Simple.
"I don't know. I have enough privacy concerns with Facebook. I don't think I want to add another social network to the mix."
Me: Please don't get me started on Facebook and privacy.
"It's all the same, though."
Me: I'm going to level with you. Facebook uses its users more than the users use Facebook. It's almost like malware/spyware that comes in a fun package. Sure, it has entertaining qualities. You can poke people and Like things. Then you can perform free advertising on Facebook, for Facebook, to make your 'friends' Like things. Then people can tag you in photographs that are now connected to you, whether you have your tagged photos set to "private" or not. You can also wait a few years while Facebook monitors and archives your every move, on and off the website. On the website, your information will come back in a new Facebook Timeline. Don't like that idea? Well, that's too bad. Off the website, Facebook has special tracking cookies to monitor what you're browsing on the web to a certain extent. Wondering why you get all of those Facebook ads that somehow cater to your interest and/or something you've researched independently? That's why. Are you aware that the Federal Trade Commission has also stepped in with Facebook privacy issues? The FTC doesn't just step into things willy-nilly.
"I think you're contradicting yourself. Didn't Twitter have some issues with the FTC?"
Me: Yes. That had to do with Twitter not having enough security against hackers (outside sources). That had nothing to do with Twitter deceiving, invading and using its own users willingly and knowingly. Do you know how many ads are on my Twitter home page right now? Zero. Do you know how many times Twitter has used my web identity, words or photographs to form an advertisement or fan page? Never.
"I guess this makes sense. I still don't get how Twitter really works, though."
Me: Here, let me show you how to make a Twitter profile.
These are my words. Mark them. I've debated this issue multiple times from a buffet line of angles with a melting pot of people. The conversations always go a little something like this:
"Why do you like Twitter, Nicole? I think Twitter is stupid."
Me: Do you know how to use it?
"No."
Me: It's much different from Facebook. Instead of waiting for someone to comment on your status or tag you at the latest bar scene, people on Twitter are busy learning from the feeds they are subscribed, connecting with people who share the same thoughts and ideas or talking to public figures who would have never noticed their existence if it wasn't for the unique Twitter format.
"So what? Facebook can do that too."
Me: Maybe. But is Jim Carrey really updating the Jim Carrey Facebook page? Considering the fact that his Facebook Biography was posted via Wikipedia, I think that's a big fat no. But he sure does have 73,650 Likes, while 616 Facebook users are currently talking about him. I would rather follow him on Twitter and read his kooky Tweets with random photos of himself instead of connect with a giant Facebook advertisement for Jim Carrey.
"Yeah right. It's probably not really Jim Carrey! How do you know?"
Me: Because it's an official Twitter account for Jim Carrey. See the blue check mark and photos he has posted of himself? And look at the Tweets. Entertaining opinions and silly, custom Jim Carrey emoticons. Not career plugs.
"Good point. Are there other famous people on Twitter?"
Me: Yes! For example, Jonah Hill is an avid Tweeter. Once in awhile, he'll cue his followers to Tweet him rapid-fire questions about anything and he answers any questions for a certain number of minutes. That's fun. Even publications like USA Today reach out to Twitter users. One day I got into a discussion with @USATodaytech about Facebook and they were talking to me personally. On Christmas morning I Tweeted a photograph to a company called Quirky. The photo was of my grandma opening a Quirky product on Christmas morning and my Tweet/photo was Retweeted by the founder and CEO of Quirky, Ben Kaufman. Twitter is a great way to get noticed by public figures or celebrities.
"But you only get 140 characters to say something! How lame is that? Facebook doesn't give you a small limit for status updates."
Me: That's because Twitter trims the fat from what people are trying to say and get out in the world. Do you really want someone to drone on and on about their cat and inject that into your newsfeed?
"No."
Me: But they can on Facebook. At least Twitter will cut them off by the time they get to the cute way the cat sleeps. Then, Twitter connects that person with other users who use cat-related hashtags.
"Facebook gives you more characters per status update. I would say this allows for more creativity and mental stimulation!"
Me: And you are very much entitled to that opinion. However, writing clear and concise sentences is not easy. If it was, everybody would have a journalism degree. Twitter forces people to be short and sweet. This relates back to my point about Twitter stimulating more brain cell use than Facebook, where people partake in the near-limitless droning.
"Well either way, social networks are all the same! Friends and followers. Photos and updates."
Me: Yes, you can Tweet photographs of random things on Twitter. Keyword: Random. Most likely, the photograph is related to the 140 characters you're Tweeting with it, making it relevant to thoughts and conversation. No, Twitter does not let you upload entire photo albums or tag people in photographs in which they never wanted to be digitally connected with in the first place. Friends vs. followers is also debatable. Think of followers as your audience. Your followers are actually interested in what you have to think and say - the entire point of Twitter. Gaining Facebook 'friends' can be forced and awkward, as they request your permission to form a digital friendship for all to see. And even so, is what they're saying really that interesting or thought-provoking? What if it's someone you haven't spoken to since high school and never really liked? Do you accept them and put up with their digital life that has now meshed with yours? Do you accept them as a 'friend' and then hide their posts in your feed to keep your sanity without offending them? Do you deny them and feel like a jerk for being mean to a possible new 'friend'? On Twitter, they can follow you or unfollow you and vice versa. You can make everything public or make everything private, where followers would have to request to follow you. Simple.
"I don't know. I have enough privacy concerns with Facebook. I don't think I want to add another social network to the mix."
Me: Please don't get me started on Facebook and privacy.
"It's all the same, though."
Me: I'm going to level with you. Facebook uses its users more than the users use Facebook. It's almost like malware/spyware that comes in a fun package. Sure, it has entertaining qualities. You can poke people and Like things. Then you can perform free advertising on Facebook, for Facebook, to make your 'friends' Like things. Then people can tag you in photographs that are now connected to you, whether you have your tagged photos set to "private" or not. You can also wait a few years while Facebook monitors and archives your every move, on and off the website. On the website, your information will come back in a new Facebook Timeline. Don't like that idea? Well, that's too bad. Off the website, Facebook has special tracking cookies to monitor what you're browsing on the web to a certain extent. Wondering why you get all of those Facebook ads that somehow cater to your interest and/or something you've researched independently? That's why. Are you aware that the Federal Trade Commission has also stepped in with Facebook privacy issues? The FTC doesn't just step into things willy-nilly.
"I think you're contradicting yourself. Didn't Twitter have some issues with the FTC?"
Me: Yes. That had to do with Twitter not having enough security against hackers (outside sources). That had nothing to do with Twitter deceiving, invading and using its own users willingly and knowingly. Do you know how many ads are on my Twitter home page right now? Zero. Do you know how many times Twitter has used my web identity, words or photographs to form an advertisement or fan page? Never.
"I guess this makes sense. I still don't get how Twitter really works, though."
Me: Here, let me show you how to make a Twitter profile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)