Google+ after the Initial Infatuation

So how many of you have already tried out Google+, the bold contender against the stealth monopoly of Facebook?
Not many, I suspect. After the not-so-secret launch this week, Google+ is now -supposedly-open for the great public to join. Although many became enamored with the sleek and clean design, the truth is that it is slightly... lonely. Yet. The new social network is, as I described earlier, a sandbox without active playmates. Or am I just the only one being left out of all the fun games on the yard? Can´t be.

Over time Facebook has managed to acquire not just headcount, but games, company pages and easy sharing options with Youtube-clips and print media articles. Is it even possible to do the latter with Google+ yet? As it is, besides posting the idiosyncratic egonews flashes on the like of "I am watching tv", people seem to like to share video clips and news articles over the social network. Pastime for the electronic masses.
And in many online publications, the button for Facebook is _there_, just a click away. Youtube is owned by Google. I tried adding a music video the normal way to my Google+-profile. It placed itself to the +1 recommended -area, where the actual video can be accessed and watched through redirection to Youtube. Why would anyone want to leave the social network to see my "recommendation"?

As Janne Ruohisto recently wrote, it is possible that Google+ will, over time, become more like a closed social network for purely professional circles, in the likes of Yammer and Socialcast. So far, they have a lot to catch up to. The interest is there, the desire to swift over from Facebook is growing. The once celebrated indie-spirited Facebook has grown into a megalith, which guards itself fiercely (try switching your friends over to Google+? We will bury your profile!!). Except when it comes to the question of privacy. The repeated accidental bugs opening up the private information are all too familiar for us.

The new announcement over the union between Skype and Facebook is great, and was magnificently timed. But the real question is, whether they will be able to answer to the much bigger questions out there: the division between growing amount of "friends" and the ownership of added personal information. Google+  has the idea of division beautifully embedded into its design with "circles". When will the same idea pop up in Facebook? Quite soon, I suspect. But also, the larger public has begun questioning Facebook´s policy of owning everything one adds into the system.Is it fair? Is it right? And more importantly, above else, should we tolerate it?

Google is bringing official  brand pages, or company page possibity, into the Google+ in two weesk. In other words, they are suspecting the critical mass to grow into such portions within this time period, that it becomes worthwhile. At the moment getting in, or "getting an invite into circles" is troublesome and takes patience and many, many tries. This illustration describes it perfectly. Still, will you be joining "The Plus" when you can? As a hint, it is good to start with old Zuckie in your circles. After all, he is the most circled person inside Google+ as I´m writing this.

Google+ after the Initial Infatuation

The Race is on: Facebook versus Google+

Earlier this year we learned about the slight slump in popularity of the megaorganism known as Facebook. 
The number of Americans using the"blue timekiller" (as I lovingly call it) had dropped within the period of May from 155 million to 149 million. And this, they (as in the faceless, all-encompassing specialists)say, is a reason to worry. Is the pop rocket of a phenomenon showing signs of fatigue? Entering mature phase? (In all fairness it is gaining more adult users over 45 rapidly). Every trend has their beginning and an end. And now, with us all hooked into using social media services, it appears to be almost translucently cool to be able to resign from joining the game. At least, that´s what I blogged about at the end of last year, with hints of antisocial network and the luxury of saying no. Because let´s face it, being "off-grid" nowadays is getting rare indeed.

Then again, for a discernible part of us, Facebook, is just... plain fun. It is like the good old handy telephone book, with only a few tiny little upgrades. I like not always being forced to leave the house to talk with friends -especially when it is freezing cold outside and you feel overdrained. If only it did not play with our privacy so much. All the little bugs and crunches that made us cough, worry and shake our heads over the last year -could this be done differently? And hey, as we are talking about it, why is there no good competition? Sure, there was (and is) diaspora , where at least you can own the rights for your own pictures. But that did not really catch fire. Nowadays, it seems diaspora is mainly being visited by its developers. Correct me if I am wrong. So what is a girl (or a boy, or an animal) to do?


Enter Google+.  The latest development of the magnate company to get us all hooked inside the big megacorporation. After being released a few days ago for a selected group of people (ok, the ones who managed to buy, bag or steal an invite) it has generated buzz all over the web. Is this the Facebook-killer? Can the social network be redone, and better?
So far, my experience is quite narrow and clinical. With the lack of an as established and large friendsupply inside the "+", playing around just isin´t as fun, at least for now. One feels like the odd kid left on the sandbox with a plastic toy and anticipation hanging in the air. However, the positives of the new social media are visible, and Google has definitely noted the problems within Facebook, which we all are more than familiar with.

The pages are clean, sleek and free of clutter. Have you noticed how the sideline of ads in Facebook has grown deviously over time? How everything you search or write about is instantly met with similar themed ads? So far, there is no such thing in Google+, but then again, they might start playing the moneygame any day soon. Google+ consists of "hangouts", "circles" and "sparks". "Sparks" is where news become social and users can set the news to match their preferences. "Hangouts" is like the name: place to hang out with your friends from various circles -through video chat. And guess why Facebook announced they are bringing Skype-powered video chat this week? The competition can be fruitful for the large public.

"Circles" is the main pro side of Google+. Tired of setting up limitations for various friends over at Facebook? Yes, the whole thing can be done differently and smoothly. In Google+ the user can easily place people in separates "circles", and set limitations to these circles of friends. Now you can literally put those parental units in their own circle, and not worry about them seeing you every post from last Friday. Let´s not forget business contacts, either.  Oversharing just is not what most of have a need to do.

Another pro (or con, depending how you look at it) is that the whole thing is integrated with other Google services. Just log into your account (gmail, Youtube etc) and you are free to play with Google+, as well. This should be good news for Android- phone users as well, as the "app" for Google+ is already available, as write this. And I got it yesterday, thank you very much. Intrigued, but wondering how to switch all you hundreds of close friends from Facebook to Google+ smoothly? No worries, there is a solution! Courtesy of a friendly developer named Mohamed Mansour, one can easily switch the bundle of pals from the blue system into the G-system. It is called "Facebook Friend Exporter", it is free and available here . Be prepared to move everyone into their respective circles, though.

So how does one get inside the happening hotspot of the moment? My, by invitation only! As I am writing this, the invitation system does not work smoothly as of yet (that´s why the system is not officially open yet!). But every now and then a few invites slip by. So... does anyone want an invite? If so, write a nice comment, send your gmail-address (snoweffect333@gmail.com) and I will do my best.

The Race is on: Facebook versus Google+

Air Travel 2000: Packed like flesh in a can

Seriously, does anyone like traveling by air these days? Flying was once classified as pure deluxe, with free meals, all-inclusive plane tickets and actual customer service with a smile. Long lines to the airport security screening to prove one´s innocence (Look! I´m not wearing shoes and I´m humiliated in many ways in front of strangers! Cannot be a terrorist!) were unheard of. And you could easily throw that perfume, vodka, absinthe and glide lotion into your hand baggage and walk through the gates without being harassed like a petty criminal. Not that I´m speaking of any of my past traveling escapades. This is just late night theorizing. Honestly.

So the fast-growing pyramid of extra fees just got higher last week. The "low-cost" American airline Spirit introduced fees for hand baggage. So now you cannot even go and try to cram all your life into that tiny carry-all without being sucked dry as a hard-working consumer. Let´s not get mistaken, people: there is absolutely nothing remotely relaxing or "deluxe" in being an air passenger these days. Well, maybe for first class customers (or for those lucky ones with their own private jets).

In an effort to save cash, I fell for those "always cheap" airline companies recently (The name starts with an "R". Need further hints?). There is something seriously wrong with pricing when most of the end total comes from added fees. And if that wasn´t enough, they made me pay extra baggage fee (40 eur) for the bottle of liquor I purchased at the airport. When did duty-free purchases become extra baggage?I was agitated, to say the least. After that, they inquired whether I am truly old enough to sit by the emergency exit. The minimum age is 18. I suppose anger suits me, if I am not mistaken?

Well, to cut the almost unnecessary personal ranting short, I will get to the point at hand. At last!
Have you thought of the layout of the planes and what it resembles? How tightly packed "the Pax" is? (Yes, that air pro talk for us mortals)How you cannot move, turn yourself or otherwise be comfortable? That´s because the economical design is not new. It has been borrowed from a much, much older form of travel.

Introducing slave ships, circa 1791.

And let´s have a look at the modern airplane interior seating design.

Still not sure of this? Why don´t we have a few more pictures!

And fast-forward back to the future :

Don´t get me wrong. I have absolutely nothing against anybody, I believe in peace and understanding. Slavery was, and still is, fundamentally wrong. But don´t you think it´s funny that we are paying for the privilege of being pushed together like flesh cargo on a trip to somewhere? Please, be free to share you horror tales of being a modern air slave!

Air Travel 2000: Packed like flesh in a can

"The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo": American version trailer

As I have stated previously, I don´t like remakes. They don´t make sense, especially when the first editions are done perfectly to the point. But of course, if the idea is good (read: marketable) and worth repeating, it will be exploited.

The original Swedish "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", based on the book "Men who hate women" by the late Stieg Larsson, was superb. Mostly due to the main actress of the film, Noomi Rapace. After her international debut, she is now well on her way to becoming a big star. Duly deserved. By all accounts, her successor in portraying the feisty character of "Lisbeth Salander" will have a hard time convincing the fans of the story of her acting abilities. If anything, the role is extremely demanding, and not meant for the mainstream Hollywood lightweight thespian.

So far, the clip of the forthcoming American remake by David Fincher does not show us much of the skills of Rooney Mara, trying to reenact Rapace´s brilliance. If anything, the short clips show us identical images and scenery resembling the original film.  Why? Because it was _filmed in the exactly same locations_. In Sweden. So why the redo? Because they just don´t like to read subtitles over there. They don´t. Good idea can be capitalized so much more smoothly without those pesky letters ruining the lower half of the screen. I will be eager to see the full final version of this re-cooking, though.  And whether it turns out to be a financial success. Rooney Mara? Not expecting that much, sorry. What mostly strikes me in this clip is the haunting music by Trent Reznor of the "Nine Inch Nails". He also composed "The Social Network".

"The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo": American version trailer

Cultural stereotypes mapped out

London-based visual artist Yanko Tsvetkov has designed an intriguing, partly amusing series on international stereotypes. Shown here, for your pleasure. You´re welcome.

Anyone care for a trip to the state of "retired popstars"?

Europe according to Italian view is quite uncomplicated, as shown above.

But so is the Russian idea. Darned it, that land of wackos.

It is quite sad to think of our beautiful world in terms of threats.
Thank heavens they managed to kill that bearded terrorist (!) One fear less to worry about in the mind of a small-city republican. (And yes, I know I´m falling to the exact same abyss of stereotypes, of which I´m writing about. They are hard to shake out of. Truly.)


 Partial views on other cultures are pervasive. No matter how we try to think of ourselves as open-minded and culturally blind, the stereotypes still creep up from the under the stones. Some scientists (see semiotics) even claim that we are all, as human beings, inclined to see things through a particular mindset: the ideological glasses are difficult to notice or completely remove. There is always an incentive to prefer "us" as opposed to "them".  Still, it is sometimes refreshing to have a look at the mirror, and see if some thoughts are truly real or worth upgrading.

Europe according to the American view, as shown above. No visits to the Commie-zone.

Cultural stereotypes mapped out

Somewhere in a Golden Cage

Director Sofia Coppola´s fourth exquisite feature, "Somewhere", is a careful and meditated look into the world of hedonism and material opulence. No doubt Coppola is partly describing her own upbringing within one of the royal families of modern cinema, yet she does not make a loud statement. There is no direct judgement or defense for the main character or his actions. We, as audience, are being shown, not told, what the life of a modern highly successful Hollywood movie star is, in all its glory and gloom.

Johnny Marco ( Stephen Dorff) is an accidental winner in this life. Or so it seems. He has it all: money, girls, abundance of free time and a celebrated position as a successful actor. Yet he has stumbled into it almost by accident, not having even really worked for it. The film starts with a lingering vision of a black sports car driving aimlessly back and forth in a desert. Clearly, this is the culmination of life in excess: there is nowhere else to go except back and forth.

The camera moves slowly and dreamlike, almost like enticing us to join the trance that has become Johnny Marco´s life. Most days he spends smoking, drinking, doing drugs and picking up girls. Women throw themselves at him, and he does not seem to recognize them as individuals anymore. For Johnny, desire has become obsolete, as it would require delayed gratification. All his wishes are being met, even before he states them. The world revolves around him, leaving him void of need or aspirations. The emptiness is tangible, and Marco has made a home for himself in a hotel, living the permaholiday life we all seem to crave sometimes.

The dialogue is far and between in this film, and mostly Coppola wants us to think for ourselves. She is careful not to give us any  direct explanations, yet inviting us to look more carefully at the soft images being thrown around the screen.

Before we start completely feeling sorry for the man, an 11-year-old daughter is being shown to us. She lives with her mother, occasionally visiting his child-like father in his bubble of a life. Somehow Cleo (Elle Fanning) has managed to make sense of the life of excess, and clearly enjoys the perks it offers without succumbing into the vacuum of entitlement. She has some life skills, making dinner for his father in the "hotel home" and practicing ice skating during nights. She is a semi-mother to her father at times, an adoring daughter at other times.

The problem with the beautifully shot and aesthetically pleasing film start at this point. What is actually the point of Cleo visiting his father´s life? Is he going to change, and if, for what? Is the message of "children are the only thing that matters in life" deep enough to sustain our interest into the overall story? What does
Marco´s existence and discourse on celebrity has to say about this modern society? Clearly, Coppola has given us a great effort, but it truly leaves us "Somewhere", not showing us enough to start a discussion.

Somewhere in a Golden Cage

The Evolutionary psychology -defense: Or, Can´t help it, it´s in my Blood

Meet Mr. Satoshi Kanazawa. Chances are, you have encountered his clever ideas somewhere, or some of his like-minded fellow, hmm,  scientists. Mr. Kanazawa likes to sow his brilliant thoughts around, so let´s have a look at some of the snappy tidbits circling our mass consciousness these days.

Just because one claims to be a psychologist, even a qualified one, does not really mean a thing. Everyone and their uncle (no pun intended, it just slipped) who has seen a therapist knows this. There are quaks on every field, and the art of playing with your mind is not an exception. Then again, who am I to judge? Few of you might agree with what Satoshi writes, and these slogans seem to go around a lot these days. To the point of using evolutionary slogans as a defense for just about everything. Even so-called "smart people" of the world have seemed to stop questioning this, and base their judgement on statements standing in thin water. (Just think of the East-Finland Court of Appeal) It is almost like trying to win an argument with a die-hard evangelist: everything _just is_ this way, because the Bible says so. There is no rhetoric, no controversy.

But let´s get back to Satoshi and his wonderful little ideas about the world. All these writings can be found here, as in "why Feminism is the anti-Viagra". The guy writes for Psychology today, which I know some of you might hold in high value. Don´t.

In 2008:  "The best thing for people to do to become happier is to get in touch with their animal nature. Recognize and accept that we are animals. In some ways, in many ways, men are more similar to male chimpanzees or gorillas than to women. Forget what feminists, hippies, and liberals have told you in the last half century.  They are all lies based on political ideology and conviction, not on science. Money, promotions, the corner office, social status, and political power are what make men happy.Spending time with their children is what makes women happy.The best thing to do is to kill all the feminists and hippies and liberals.  Destroy political correctness completely once and for all."


Charming. Let´s see what else he has a sweet opinion on.




In 2011:  "Are all women essentially prostitutes? Yes.  Prostitution is evolutionarily familiar, because mating is evolutionarily familiar and prostitutes (at least the classy ones) are no different from other women, whom men also have to pay – not in cash payments but in dinners and movies, gifts, flowers, chocolates, and motor oil – if they wanted to impress them enough to have sex with them." 


And his latest jewel of a daily thought:  "Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women? There are marked race differences in physical attractiveness among women, but not among men. "




(And here we have a cute pink graph explaining the whole theory, hope it helps!):

"There are many biological and genetic differences between the races. However, such race differences usually exist in equal measure for both men and women. For example, because they have existed much longer in human evolutionary history, Africans have more mutations in their genomes than other races. And the mutation loads significantly decrease physical attractiveness (because physical attractiveness is a measure of genetic and developmental health). But since both black women and black men have higher mutation loads, it cannot explain why only black women are less physically attractive, while black men are, if anything, more attractive"

Just wonderful. I´m sure that he and late Mr.Mengele would have had a lot to talk about.

Cup of tea, some silly theories to ponder on, fireplace in the background... Charming. 

The Evolutionary psychology -defense: Or, Can´t help it, it´s in my Blood

James Bond, Product placement and the not-so innocent Quickie

The old days of moviemaking, when a simple Coke-can might give us a quick innocent flash on the sidelines of the overall story (semi-accidentally) are long gone. These days it is all about the business and cross-promotion.

In "The Social Network" all the computers were conveniently old-school Sony-apparatuses, to boost the sales of the parent company producing the Facebook-epic.  The two "Sex and the City" movies were blatant advertising towards females from beginning to end, much like the tv-series they were based on. "Cast away" was nothing but a long commercial (for which we moviegoers paid!) defending the glory of Fed-ex. "Up in the Air", while still having some artistic value, was basically showing us how cool "American Airlines" is- look, even George Clooney likes to travel with it! In the eyes of the mass public, there is no difference between an actor and his/her character. We buy for a multitude of reasons, and a lot of the choices are anything but rational. Or so they say. They, you might ask?

These days, when actual commercials are easy to miss with TIVO, illegal torrents and just plain growing resistance to direct messages, the (M)ad Men have gotten ever more creative. Believe it or not, there are actual people making a living planning all those wicked marketing moves to be shown on film. Sometimes it is grotesque and obvious, often so subtle and fast that you might blink and miss it. But images are never unintentional. The idea is to plant a seed, make the viewer desire the product and not even realize what hit her/him. At the moment this beast of a business is valued at $ 3 billion.

One of the professionals in the mind game business of today is Norm Marshall, whose official title is "entertainment marketing consultant". Former car salesman has made a living arranging fertile unions between brands and Hollywood, and sees no harm in what he does. But even Marshall admits that there has to be a balance between the creative forces and the marketing forces: "otherwise it is just one big commercial". He himself only watches period movies anymore, due to boredom with contemporary flicks and their constant ads.

And how does this get us to the "Man with a licence to kill"? The production of the next earth-shaking spy thriller was almost halted due to difficulties in arranging financing. But alas, a few calls to quite a few companies, and the budget is back in order. So much so, that practically a third of the overall budget of the next James Bond- classic is coming from product placement. In total that makes a nice $45 million dollars, and with that kind of money, we are sure to see brands names from beginning to end. If you want to pass them, you might as well pass the entire action adventure.

Morgan Spurlock, the ever-curious American filmmaker on the loose, has naturally chosen this sexy topic for his new documentary, "POM Wonderful presents: The Greatest Movie ever sold". In his customary satirical way, he exposes the modus operandi behind the entire business, and manages to sell some visible space in his own film, as well. All in all, he has about 20 brands sponsoring his cultural critique, making one question what his overall goal is in the first place. According to Spurlock, even the first short clips of film were filled with advertisements: Thomas Edison shot the famous train scenes with ads plastered on the sides of the train. Spurlock´s intent is good, yet his idea seems to lack teeth on the actual agenda. These days, the few glimpses of a Coke-can or a  brand name cigarette  are increasingly being upgraded with actual script inserts, making movies (or tv-shows) seem like occasional, well,  plain commercials.(Fast-rewind to previous example on "Cast Away"). Problem does not lie with marketing itself: nowadays it is hard to walk through a street without being offered something. The issue lies within ourselves as a society, and our increasing acceptance to become targets for messages masquerading as innocent cultural texts. Or, does it all really matter? Are we consumers above all else?




Even the genius auteur himself, Mr. David Lynch, is not immune to the allures of commercialism. Besides making brilliant and mind-boggling art films every now and then, he has also ventured into the world of commercials. Perfume, pregnancy tests, cars, game consoles, antacids... Lynch is first to admit he does these for money and access to latest technology. But product placement for him putrefies.

James Bond, Product placement and the not-so innocent Quickie

The Good Old Days of Advertising: Or, is it always illegal to kill a woman?

Shockingly, these disturbing images were once considered acceptable mainstream advertising. Oh, the nostalgia.

 I can´t wait to see what happens 50 years from now; will I look at those pesky Axe/Lynx men´s deodorant ads with a fresh eye? At first one might be appalled at looking at these old pictures, but then again... I´m amused. The reality, in which we live today in the Western countries, is quite far from the "Happy Days" -era pictured below. Woman´s space within the society has greatly expanded from the pigeonhole of wife-mother-whore -dimension, and as a female myself, I am truly glad over that development. Then again, let´s not forget that it is 2011, and yet in Saudi-Arabia women still have to fight over the right to vote. Or to be even recognized for being born  in the first place.

The Good Old Days of Advertising: Or, is it always illegal to kill a woman?