Facebook and Privacy, or Lack Thereof

The biggest piece of news to hit 350 million Internet users this week was the introduction of new “privacy” controls in Facebook. I use the term “privacy” loosely because if you bothered to dig into your Facebook privacy settings, you would have been somewhat shocked to see that many of the default privacy settings magically reverted to an open-free-for-everyone state. It happened to me and a few others. And, apparently, it happened to many millions of others. The bottom line? Very few of us were happy.

Here are the reasons why Facebook has it all wrong. Actually, there’s only one big reason. And, if Facebook is paying attention, this critique can eventually lead to Facebook privacy a model that’ll be a standard for the Internet.  Ready?

It’s Way Too Complicated
Oh.  My.  Goodness.  Have you ever bothered to count how many screens and how many tabs on each screen you have to visit before you’ve fully examined all your Facebook privacy settings?  Rather than looking, I’m trying to figure it out in my head and I’ve concluded that I’d much rather attempt mental long division.  Or cube roots.

Facebook could argue that they would like to give users a high degree of granularity when it comes to exactly who can seen what.  That’s understandable.  After all, who would want their mom to catch a photo of them passed out on the toilet after a night out with the old gang?  Because you know your buddies are going to post the photo.  Then tag you.  And before you know it, you’re paying own way through college.

My response?  You have several options.  First, don’t invite your mom.  Or second, get new buddies.  Or third, don’t invite anybody you don’t trust.  Personally, I favor both the second and third options.  And I’d think most others would as well.

Ultimately, what Facebook fails to realize is that these extreme levels of granularity are completely and entirely unnecessary.  Because if you “friend” a bunch of jerks who plaster your wall with vulgarities, is Facebook really to blame? Obviously not. And, what Facebook doesn’t realize is that the only reason why people feel okay with posting status updates and pictures is not because there’s a sense of trust within the underlying computer code.

Instead, it’s much more simple.  People post because they trust those they’ve “friended.”

Once a user has made a commitment to “friend” someone, they inherit all the risks and rewards that go along with that decision.  I honestly doubt that a significant percentage of Facebook users have used any of the privacy options that prevent one group of friends from seeing things that another group can’t.  And why should they?  Because they’re your friends.

So, Facebook, cut it out with privacy controls to the extreme. Come 2010 all I want to see is this:

Facebook Privacy Settings

Please select one of the options below which will dictate how all of the content generated and provided by you will be seen by others.  Show what I create to:

• Just me.
• All my friends.
• All friends of friends.
• Everybody.

Please select who can search for you:

• Just me.
• All my friends.
• All friends of friends.
• Everybody.

Yes, it’s that easy.  I’m willing to wager that about 99.5% of all Facebook users would be thrilled with the above.  But for reasons that go beyond the scope of this article, I don’t believe Facebook shares the sentiment.  Why?  In a nutshell: Ads.

Getting back, Facebook, ok, I realize I may be wrong.  But I doubt it.  If you think I’m wrong, I challenge you to share with the public what percentage of your users actually take advantage of the granular per-friend privacy settings. My guess is something around 0.01%.  If that.

In the end, does any of this matter?  Because if history is an indicator, Facebook may be the “it” thing now, but won’t be forever.  Who knows what will eventually surpass Facebook as the “it” social networking phenomenon?  Whatever it is, my money’s on the one that’s more user-friendly, more transparent, easier to use, and customizable.

For now, Facebook ol’ buddy, you’ll just have to do.  And consequently, I’ll have to be on my guard and make do.

Author’s aside: You can try but for very obvious reasons you won’t find me on Facebook.  Instead, try my twitter account: @daveoei.

Ben and Jerrys...warm?

Many Gen-Y’ers have no memory of seeded watermelons.  In fact, you would have to look long and hard to relive the glory days of spitting out those small black slippery suckers on hot summer afternoons.  I suppose we all owe a debt to those scientists who relieved us from the need to eat nimbly while devouring a watermelon, scientists who, per Jerry Seinfeld, somehow decided to give up careers looking for the cure to cancer to instead fight the war on pt-tooing out seeds.

But I digress.

Unilever, owner of Ben and Jerry’s (Surprised? It happened 9 years ago) is looking to sell you warm ice cream.  It has a team of scientists looking into the prospect.  Why?  To help reduce or eliminate the need for keeping their very expensive ice cream frozen before you buy it.  Why? Because keeping things frozen for long periods of time not only costs energy, but ultimately yields a high carbon footprint.  Unilever figures, if they can sell you warm ice cream that you freeze when you get home, the environment wins.  Big.

Though the scientific work required to make this happen won’t likely earn anybody a Nobel, it may, someday, earn some gratitude from a polar bear or two.

Source: TimesOnline

Arctic Ice Flow (courtesty of NOAA)

Scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research will publish in tomorrow’s edition of the journal Science that the last 10 years have been the warmest 10-year period in the arctic compared to any withing the last 2000 years.  The main culprit?  Greenhouse gases.  All this comes on top of  a 21,000 year old cycle caused to a wobble in the earth’s rotation that has, for the last 8,000 years, put less sunlight onto the arctic than otherwise (think of a top that spins and wobbles).  Eventually, within a few thousand years, the cycle will reverse, leading to an increase in sunlight in the arctic region, potentially exasperating the problem of already warmer temperatures.

Evidently, Cash for Clunkers couldn’t have come at a better time.

Source: MSNBC

July 22, 1980, Mount Saint Helens. © USGS, Photo by Jim Vallance.

Redoubt Volcano, Alaska, currently at code Orange. Photo taken February 26, 2009, courtesy of AVO/USGS, photo by Jennifer Adleman.

Dear Governor Bobby Jindal,

Last week, President Barack Obama’s proposed a multi-trillion dollar budget and in response you said, “And $140 million for something called volcano monitoring. Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington D.C.”

Nicely put.  After all, in my neck of the woods, there are no such things as…volcanoes.

Sheesh.

I mean, let’s set aside the fact that unlike what you said, in reality only 10% of the $140 million you mentioned will be used for monitoring volcanoes.  The rest would be allocated across the United States Geological Service which is tasked to help monitor and aid in the prevention of damage resulting from nearly all natural disasters (pdf).  Such as wildfires.  Floods.  Tsunamis.  Oh, and hurricanes.

Kilauea, lava entering the ocean on December 19, 2008. Photo courtesy of USGS.

Wait – and earthquakes.

Hey.  Where I live there are earthquakes, lots of them.  Where my cousins live there are wildfires.  And if I recall, my friends in your wonderful state of Louisiana and relatives in Florida often get bombarded by those nasty hurricanes.

On second thought, Mr. Jindal, I think I would like to have these potential natural disasters monitored.  I want these organizations to be well funded so ordinary citizens like myself have a chance of receiving a warning in advance of disaster and potentially surviving one.

But is $14 million too much for volcanic monitoring?  It is a lot of money.  But considering that a single Boening 747 can easily cost twenty times as much, and that a single plume of volcanic ash can bring down one of these planes, and that we have 169 active volcanoes in the U.S., I’d like to think we can spare the $14 million.

Tigers, Whole Foods, Global Warming & Orangutans. What's the Link? Photo by Dave Watts.

Palm oil.

Palm what?

If you pay as little attention to your food as I do then you’re probably just as surprised as I am that: 1) Some palm trees make edible fruit; and 2) Some of this fruit is linked to endangered species destruction and deforestation.

It so happens that for the last 50 years or so, palm oil has been making head-ways into the foods we eat.  It’s also in bio-fuels we burn and cosmetics some of you may use.  Recently, there’s been a huge push for the introduction of palm oil in U.S. foods because of new trans-fat reporting requirements.  Because palm oil doesn’t have any, it’s been used as a choice to replace non-trans-fat-free shortening.

And while we are collectively healthier for eating less trans-fat, there are measurable global consequences that have resulted from this relatively tiny shift in our dietary habits.  Namely, deforestation on a vast scale and threatened species nearing extinction.

Much of this palm oil is grown in Indonesia and Malaysia.  According to the Associated Press, the amount of deforestation needed to accommodate the growth in palm oil plantations is on the order of 670,000 acres every year.  Or, to put that into perspective, it’s an area of forest that’s cleared and replaced with palms that’s greater in size than the cities of Los Angeles and New York (including all 5 boroughs) combined.  Every year.

That’s a lot.

As a result of the forest clearing, there have been increasing incidents of sumatran tiger incursions with forest villagers, and consequently, deaths on both sides.  Naturally that’s very unfortunate both ways, but considering there are likely less than 1000 of these tigers left, it’s easier to feel sorry for the tigers.  But considering the high rate of poverty in Indonesia, I’d also hate to be that mauled logger who was only trying to pay the bills.

Other prominent victims include the orangutan and pygmy elephant.  Both rely on the native forest habitat for survival, but the pygmy elephant has been specifically targeted because they thrive on palm fruit.  As you can imagine, that doesn’t make palm plantation owners too happy.

Orangutans are also frequently cited as victims, an assertion flatly rejected by the American Palm Oil Council, an association of palm oil developers, producers, refiners, etc…  But there is one glaring problem with the APOC’s arguments – they focus to absolve Malaysia producers of any wrongdoing.  But they fail to mention Indonesia at all in their counterpoint, the other very large palm oil producer.  I wonder why.

Which brings us to global warming.  One could argue that replacing forests with productive palm trees is at worst a carbon-neutral event.  Perhaps.  Yet it remains to be tested or demonstrated.  But replacing native peatland with palm trees almost certainly is not.  And unfortunately, the world will have to face the consequences of this as a result of the Indonesian government’s February 2009 decision to lift a ban to replace peatland with palm plantations.  Estimates of carbon released over the next few years as a result of this is…staggering.

Is there a silver lining anywhere in this story?!  Yes, well, maybe.  Whole Foods announced earlier this month that it will only sell palm oil obtained through sustainable means in its products starting in 2012.  Everything else will be banned.  Surely a bold move.  Though I can’t figure out why it will take three years to implement this ecologically-minded idea.

It should be as easy as saying, “Ok, I don’t want to buy any more of your palm oil, I’ll buy this other palm oil instead.”  Or, perhaps Whole Foods realizes the grim truth – doing the “right” thing is very hard.  Which in turn does not bode well for the average consumer: If Whole Foods is going to have a tough time telling which palm oil producer is good and which isn’t, how are we supposed to know?

USS Mullinnix as it's getting sunk as part of naval tests in August 1992. Photo by USSMullinnix.org.

The path to science discovery and application does not always follow a straight line.  This is one such example.

For years the U.S. Navy has conducted tests of the explosive variety in an effort to make ships stronger and bombs more potent.  I can only assume they’re succeeding in doing a very good job at both.

But since these tests tend to take place over open water, there’s collateral damage of the marine variety.  In particular, dolphins and turtles.

Currently, the U.S. Navy takes measures to ensure that high-valued creatures such as these are a safe distance away from test sites before the bombs go off.  But the nagging question has always been – how far is far enough?

In order to answer that question, the U.S. Navy joined forces with scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.  Together they collected carcasses of turtles and dolphins which died of natural causes, embedded pressure sensors within them, and subjected them to underwater explosions from varying distances.

They found that while pressures of 300 pounds per square inch turned the insides of dolphins to mush, the same could not be said of turtles which recorded some but not significant internal damage.

They suspect the shell’s composition, shape, or some combination thereof helps protects turtles from these otherwise insane pressures.  Maybe it’s how the shell is basically an extension of the turtle’s ribcage.  To answer that question, further research is needed.  And if they find an answer, the hope would be to better improve the effectiveness of body armor and helmets.

You know, just in case you happen to be too close to an exploding ship.

Source: Woods Whole Oceanographic Institution

Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu. Source: Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l. Lab

If you were like me, you spent most of Tuesday working, only to return home and sit glued to your TV watching the inauguration  on your DVR.  Yes, Obama is president.  Which also means, yes, we again have people in government who put their faith in Science.

One of those people is Steven Chu, the just affirmed Secretary of Energy.  He’s got his work cut out for him.  Not only has Obama charged him with reducing our dependence on foreign oil, but he has to figure out how to curb greenhouse gasses while making our country more energy efficient.  And if he can turn every car into a plug-in, call it icing on the cake.

Of course, like everyone else on Obama’s cabinet, Chu has serious street cred.

Not only was he a professor of physics at Stanford, but he ran the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory where they do serious rocket science (and other amazing things).  But perhaps most notable is his receipt of the Nobel prize just 10 years prior.

The prize was for his work on discovering and creating optical tweezers to cool and hold atoms and molecules in place so they can be studied and observed.  Such as, DNA.  Or, an enzyme in the process of utilizing a single molecule of ATP.  Cool stuff.

What’s I find most intriguing is his collaborative approach.  While not unusual in academia, often the drumbeat to publish can feel pretty cut-throat.  And that’s putting it mildly.  Which is why I was fascinated by Chu’s account of how the Nobel Prize came to be.  He protrays himself as a man was  eager to learn, humbled by his discovery, but does not miss to remark on each and every shortcoming, mistake, and area of ignorance.

It’s a good read if you have a chance.  You can either find the Review of Modern Physics, 70, 685 – 706 (1998) or just download it here (also available on Google).  By the end, I think you’ll agree there’s light to be found at the end of this tunnel.

Let’s face it, you’re pretty screwed once the solar flashlight goes through it’s charge.

Oh, that is unless you happen to have access to the sun for a recharge. Which, if you do, bemoans the obvious question: Why are you carrying around a flashlight in the first place?

Legal stuff: I do not know anything about this product. I’m in no way endorsing or ripping apart this product in particular, and I would guess that it works exactly as it was designed to do (ha ha, see above). But hey, even that’s a guess.

Source: BogoLight

Scientists at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute have captured nearly conclusive evidence of glacial surface meltwater draining in Greenland, and its corresponding effect on ice sheet movement.

Until now, it was hypothesized that some of the vast quantity of meltwater that originates at the surface of Greenland’s glaciers during the summer season may filter all the way down through thousands of feet of ice sheet to the surface. And, once there the meltwater would have a lubricating effect, allowing the glacier to slide at a faster rate toward it’s meeting with the Atlantic.

Well, these folks actually witnessed the event in progress, and by their accounts the overall effect was quite colossal.

Their instruments were placed by a relatively large lake, one holding more than 10 billion gallons of water. Then, over the period of a day or two, they recorded its disappearance. Think: very large bath tub, very large drain hole, all within the size and magnitude of Niagara Falls.

Then, they also recorded a shift up in elevation of the ice sheet. And, to top it off, a nearly doubling of the rate of movement of the sheet.

What are the ramifications? It’s not certain yet. But, some scientists suggest that the ice sheets act like giant solar reflectors, taking the sun’s rays and reflecting it back to space, helping keep the planet cool. Plus, ice is like a huge heat sink. And, it’s an excellent insulator. If it were to go, or diminish in size significantly, you can probably expect to see changes in our climate and ocean patterns.

Source: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Uh oh.

Instead, it turns out Synechococcus developed a method for bypassing the carbon-fixing step of photosynthesis, which it utilizes in areas of the ocean which are iron deficient. Unfortunately, that includes a rather large chunk of ocean. And when Synechococcus uses this no-carbon-fixing pathway, it means carbon dioxide is not getting removed from the atmosphere as quickly as Al Gore (or nearly anybody else) would like.

And, whereas previously scientists estimated cyanobacteria carbon dioxide uptake by simply analyzing satellite imagery and measuring chlorophyll concentrations, they’ll now have to take into account levels of nutrients as well. And I’m not sure how you do that with satelites.

Yikes, it looks like someone’s job just got a bit harder. And, an even better reason to trade in for a Prius. Wait, oh yeah, one more pathway to learn in Bio 1A and Biochem 126.

Source: Stanford

Photo: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Then came the news about the oil tanker which busted open in high seas off the Black Sea. It was supposed to have released over a half million gallons of oil. No word yet on the scope of the damage, but don’t hold your breath for good news.

Bay Area Source + Photo: San Francisco Chronicle

Russian Tanker Source: MSNBC. Photo: Reuters

But just when the horizon is starting to look just that much more rosy, new reports suggest that Mercury originating from coal power plants in China are contaminating air, water, and fish in the United States. The effects are quantifiable and significant. What’s worse is there’s no end in sight. Ah, what a morbid way to end a post.

Photo: NationalHistoryMag.com
Source: Yahoo!