This morning I wrote a letter to AWS software, the creators of weatherbug. Weatherbug managed to get itself installed on this computer for a few hours last night.
Dear Stephanie (and the Weatherbug Marketing Team),
Weatherbug is a useless, intrusive, manipulative, resource-draining program.
You might argue that information about the weather is useful. Not only is this information readily available in many other places (using Weatherbug is like keeping a regularly-refreshing browser window open to Weather.com), but obsessive concern with the weather (exemplified by The Weather Channel) is often mentioned as a good model of "what's wrong with America": needless concern over what is inherently uncontrollable. Worrying about the weather ranks close to the least mindful, stupidest things a human being can possibly endeavor to do. Stick your head out the window. If it's raining, grab an umbrella.
I am tired of programs that modify Windows, aggressively market themselves and desperately try to keep some instance of themselves running at all times. I shouldn't have to call up the taskmanager periodically and see if something is running that I didn't specifically ask to run. RealPlayer is probably the worst example of an intrusive program like this, but Weatherbug is not far behind. The goal of these programs is to make the user dependent on them, and use them for as much as possible. The problem comes when 50 of these programs are installed that all manifest this goal.
If for some reason the sentiment "Hmm, it'd be nice to be automatically informed about weather conditions" occurred to me, then I'd go and look for a Weatherbug-like program. However, I don't like, want or need AMS's Weatherbug-marketing -- there's no reason Weatherbug should come along with an installation of AIM (my Mother installed it, I'm sure by "clicked the wrong thing").
But people like you, semi-shady, profit-motivated software companies, rely on people like my Mother who don't notice anything on their computers, and just happily click away, installing "useful software" like Bonzi Buddy, Yahoo Toolbar and Weatherbug. Nobody needs all of this junk.
Your user-base comprises a combination of people like my Mother, who simply don't notice Weatherbug forcing itself on them, and people who are so brain-damaged by capitalism that they honestly think "Wow! I really NEED this product! My life without this product is unimaginable!" when confronted with marketing.
Part of the problem is with Windows -- it allows too much to go on without the user's control. It is possible to use Windows mindfully, but it requires a level of scrutiny most users are unable or unwilling to assume. Most people are going to end up with nonsense like Weatherbug on their computer, just because they've been manipulated into it by Microsoft and other unscrupulous software companies like AWS Weathernet.
It's embarrassing how much "free" software is made for Windows, all of it inundated with manipulative advertising. Really, all you need on a computer is a text editor, a few compilers, and a browser. Maybe even a chat program, an image-editor, or an mp3-player. But programs like "Weatherbug" are manifestations of capitalist sprawl, and are ugly to behold. Yours is simply not a useful, wanted or needed service.
Stephanie, you should be ashamed of yourself, if you really are a meteorologist. Meteorology is concerned with science, not marketing blitzes and the lowest common denominator of software capitalism.
AWS represents the dregs of computing, and people like them are a threat to good information, good software, and the educated user. If you google "Weatherbug," the fourth hit is "PC Hell: How to Remove WeatherBug." What does this tell you about public opinion on your "service"?
If you actually read this far, I'm sure your marketing goons will probably come to this conclusion: "Ok, this is an example of public opinion on Weatherbug. Many informed users probably feel this way. How can we disassociate Weatherbug from things like Bonzi Buddy and get it categorized with geek-friendly products like Google?"
The way to do it, unfortunately, is to get rid of the intrusive advertisements -- Weatherbug is adware, and adware is never going to be taken seriously by a serious user. You could also slim down your program -- make it a single exe that doesn't modify the registry or any other part of Windows. Make it small, make it focus on one thing, and try to make it do this one thing really well. Hire better programmers, as opposed to Internet marketing strategists.
However, if you take away the ads and reduce the program bloat, you won't be able to be self-supporting, and pay all the people you want to pay the amount they want to be paid. A single intelligent high school student in his spare time could develop a weather application that's many times more informative and useful than Weatherbug.
If your goal is to prey on the ill-informed computer user, and not to provide a good, useful, or at least inoffensive product, then kudos to you. Examine RealPlayer's marketing model for inspiration -- you aren't there yet, but you're well on your way. You might also want to look at Bonzi Buddy and Gain/Gator.
I'm not sure if companies like AWS know they're leeches on society, and that they're readily classifiable as con-men and thieves, or if they honestly believe that they're providing a wanted, "needed" service to people. I tend to think that self-delusion is rampant, and that these companies don't or perhaps more likely don't want to see themselves as predatory and harmful to society.
Again, this time in list form, here are my good-faith suggestions to improve Weatherbug:
1) Get rid of intrusive behavior (pushing itself along with other installations, launching browser windows of its own accord, pleading not to be uninstalled, etc).
2) Remove the advertisements.
3) Make the program one small, self-contained .exe that doesn't modify Windows.
I won't talk about the improving the "service" Weatherbug provides, because I think that service is pretty much useless. But those others above are real suggestions -- if you implemented them, I might at least try Weatherbug out of curiosity before realizing that it's all fluff and nonsense, instead of being immediately repulsed by it and the picture it conjures in my mind: your team of leering, plastic marketing-sharks, standing in a clot rubbing their soft, perfumed hands together, thinking of ways to better fleece Joe Consumer by convincing him that what he "wants" is what he "needs."
Sincerely,
The Shaper of Worlds
Shortly after I sent this, I received a reply. I won't go into too many details for two reasons: 1) a confidentiality notice prohibits my publishing of that reply, and 2) the reply amounted to a very extended message of 'yes! Weather is important!' particularly amusing was the sender's mentioning of terrorism, and weatherbug's importance in providing a safe Homeland. There were also instances of misquoting, misinterpreting metaphors, and general bad logical writing form. The email was pure propaganda, just as I'd expect to receive from a marketing stooge. Anyway, here's the email I sent back:
The Dep't of Homeland Security uses Weatherbug. The National Weather Service. The NOAA. Etc. Ok, great. You didn't mention why the average person needs continuously updated weather information. Oh wait, you do...
›If a biological agent was released near your office, would you rather know which way the wind was blowing NOW, or an hour ago?
Appeal to fears of terrorism: good, good. You have your Marketing 101 down pat, Hoffman. Using threats of terrorism to boost sales is about as low as you can go. But, I'm sure this technique is used a lot by the corporate indoctrinators. Those are the first two points to consider in marketing: what do people want, fear, and need the most? How can we then manipulate them into believing that our product is directly related to those basic needs?
I noticed that you chose to ignore my other concerns, but focused on my contention that I find Weatherbug information un-useful. Well, this is an easy position to argue. Largely, your response consisted of over-generalization, truism and error. I guess this is what I should expect from one of America's corporate brainwashing-specialists.
I found another useless ad-ware program (Weatherbug) installed on my computer this morning, so I removed it. In the process, a browser windows was opened and I was directed to a site where I had the opportunity to send AWS my letter. You didn't go into any detail or attempt any justifications on why your software intrusively and manipulatively tries to get itself installed. If a program has to resort to underhandedness to complete an installation, then maybe it shouldn't be around in the first place.
I direct you once more (I'm not convinced you read my letter in its entirety) to this Google search (notice the fourth hit):
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q= weatherbug
Keep up the good work -- world-views like yours are largely responsible for America's overconsumption of global resources and the nationalistic attitude that has made us hated the world over. Corporate capitalism is bad for the Earth and bad for its inhabitants. But it's what you do best, Hoffman, and it's what you're paid to do.
People like you deserve the America you help create. Have a nice drive home today in your SUV. Be sure to listen to the weather!
Then, the discussion started to turn friendly. A few more emails were exchanged. He admitted to in appropriately using the 9-11 reference, and I admitted to sending ideological rants about capitalism because my mom had installed an AIM bundled program. I even asked him if I could publish his emails, but he declined, so I'll publish my other two sent emails in this dialog.
Whee. Thanks for replying. This is probably the last one I can muster (note my lack of caps)...
My complaint wasn't primarily with weather forecasting in general being useless. Some people need to know it (pilots), or at least have convinced themselves that they need to know it. Of course, weather prediction is semi-accurate at best, and I'm convinced that concern with 'what the weather will be' is feeding a sort of national syndrome of control-freakishness and OCD.
My problem (and what spurred me to write you this morning) was more about weatherbug acting adware-ishly than it was an assertion of 'weather information is not important' (even though my thinking seems to fall more towards that end of the continuum than yours).
I notice that you have devoted some space on your website to explaining that weatherbug is NOT spyware -- my guess is that this is because you've received complaints along those lines.
› Regarding the download- what program was it that you were installing?
I believe it came bundled with an installation of AIM (AOL instant messenger). I've also heard that it comes bundled with AOL.
› I am guessing that the program served an ad for WeatherBug and upon clicking our ad you were taken to [1]www.weatherbug.com where you can of course download the program or leave feedback. If this was not simply a WeatherBug ad, please let me know.
Actually, that may have been the case. Someone who isn't all that computer savvy was responsible for the installation. However, the party in question isn't usually THAT bad...my guess is that at some point during installation of AIM she neglected to uncheck a box that allows weatherbug's installation. I really don't know, though -- I wasn't there.
› As for the google search, I'm confused- it simply posts the uninstall instructions that WE sent them when they asked us if they could post them-
Its mention on pchell.com, and the fact that the fourth hit on google points to uninstallation instructions are indicative of weatherbug's status in the web community.
A lot of my concerns are idealistic. I'm afraid you were the target for this morning's rant on capitalism -- thanks for taking it well.
I'm mistrustful of adware -- I think that's the bottom line. And, I find that programs like that seem to endeavor to get themselves installed on windows, which becomes taxing after a while. I don't think a market is the best way to distribute software or information, and really don't think it's good for much besides making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Weatherbug has profit motives, which I don't necessarily approve of, and I certainly don't feel that they belong on the internet or computing, which have decidedly noncommercial roots.
Last one:
› Thanks Matthew. Dare I even ask what "beevomit.org" is?? ;-) (well, other than the actual name for 'honey').
Beevomit.org is one of the domains I can use for my email. I've set my email client to edit headers so I can make my emails 'from' anything I want (even barnacle@nsa.gov) -- my first few mails to you were from sdf-us.org, I think. A good reason for this is that if one finds that one is suddenly inundated with spam from a particular email address, one can just remove it from the list of functional addresses. But mainly, it's just fun to have lots of mail domains. But yeah -- honey. I think that was the inspiration for my sysadmin registering beevomit.org.
› Yes, AOL IM offers a special version of WeatherBug, however the install screen is very clear as far as being able to opt out. I attached the screenshot.
Ah, yes...it is clear (to me). But I have some experience with usability, and if you want a user to notice something, you make it BIG and THE ONLY THING ON THE PAGE.
LIKE THIS. YOU CAN'T MISS THIS LINE.
Contrast your 'install now' button in weatherbug.com with the 'opt out' checkbox on the screenshot. It's pretty clear what is felt to be important for people to notice. Really, this is how capitalism works -- it evolves in almost a darwinian way. Those things that make money are focused on, and resources are diverted from those things that dont. So, over time, some things grow and other things die off (or, some things are BIG AND NOTICABLE and others are small). Imagine a repair department for a lawnmower company that offers free maintenance on lawnmowers. It's going to be hard to get your lawnmower repaired for free, because resources are going to be diverted into things like marketing and maybe r&d. The repair department is a finance-drain, so it's going to be understaffed, poorly equiped, etc. It's just the way 'the system' works. To continue the analogy to our discussion, 'don't install checkbox':'install button' as 'repair department':'marketing department'.
›We recently found a reason why there is confusion about us being spyware - well, other than just the general rantings from the same folks who say everything under the sun is spyware.
Hehe, yeah...the anticapitalism on the internet can get pretty dogmatic at times. But, I happen to subscribe to it -- I just try to approach it with reason. I think what these people are doing is using the term 'spyware' to describe any kind of software they'd rather not have, just because it's a pejorative term and therefore useful in demonizing.
I like you, but I don't like your product :)
Remember: you are not AWS. AWS is not jay hoffman, no matter what they may want you to believe ;)
I'm grateful for the writing opportunity the SDF bulletin board provides. I find that I write in a subtly different way when I post on the bbs, as opposed to my blog. I think the main difference is that my bbs writing is more clearly intended for an audience, whereas my blog writing is more like a diary. This is sort of strange, considering the fact that I KNOW people read my blog. Yet, it still feels like this private little haven of personal expression. Anyway, it's good to have both the blog and the bbs. The reason I'm transplanting this post from bbs to blog is that I think I stumbled upon the beginnings of something.
TACKER: barnacle () SUBJECT: .. Slayer DATE: 13-Oct-04 17:54:12 HOST: sverige I'd be interested in slayer live, actually. I don't quite trust bands with a lot of distortion, violent drumming and several instruments going at once to sound too good live, but maybe slayer sounds better than most. i can't remember having a good listening experience at a rock concert. Jazz and classical are different -- there, the focus is on the sound. But at a rock venue, it seems to me that the focus is on concert culture: jumping around and yowling, etc, and not really listening per se. Rock concerts are fun, but I don't see that they have any sound-advantage. but people rave about seeing this band or that band live. The totality of the experience probably amounts to compensation, for some, for the muddy sound. also worth mentioning: at a classical or jazz concert, one is actually hearing the instruments. Sound waves travel from the bell of a trumpet, the strings of a violin, etc, directly to the listener's ear. In a rock concert, electric instruments are mic'ed and broadcast over a PA speaker system. Of course, electric guitar and bass amps use speakers too, but we expect them to sound this way -- that's the true nature of the instrument. so when we go to a rock concert, it's essentially the same as listening to our favorite band over a stereo system, improvisational differences, mistakes, etc, notwithstanding. but I'm sure that 'experiencing' a band live is something that transcends pure sound and sound-enjoyment. Maybe a live album, even if it is just sound, reminds the listener of that 'experiences' or the possibility of having such an 'experience.' and who's to say that one sound is 'better' than another? Maybe one person prefers the sound of a live album to a studio album. I can't read that person's mind and say 'ah, the sound isn't 'better,' but you're just reminded of how cool concerts are when you listen to it.' I can assume that's true, based on my own experiences and my own limited, memory-based understanding of those experiences, but calling one sound 'better' than another presumes a platonic realm of ideas -- an 'objective reality' that I'm not convinced exists. we can measure the sound somewhat objectively, and say 'a studio album has a wider dynamic range than a live album.' I'm pretty sure this is almost universally true. However, we can't say 'a wider dynamic range is a more enjoyable sound, always, for every listener.' some people (smj, for instance) really like the lo-fi aesthetic. I can speculate on why this might be someone's preference (musical polish reeks of blandness and capitalism, it smacks of anal-retentivity, it's not 'punk rock,' other psychological conjecture, etc), but I can't 'know' why. Likewise, I can't make a statement like 'recorded albums sound better than live ones', or vice versa -- it's both unscientific and unpostmodern to make assumptive, dogmatic statements like these. all I can say is 'in my past set of experiences, I seem to remember preferring the sound of studio albums as opposed to live albums.' but I still want to see slayer live. That'd be an experience :) IT'S RAINING BLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!! (fromalaceratedsky!!)
I included the entire post for context, but only one particular part of this rant should be focused on:
i can speculate on why this might be someone's preference (musical polish reeks of blandness and capitalism, it smacks of anal-retentivity, it's not 'punk rock,' other psychological conjecture, etc), but I can't 'know' why. Likewise, I can't make a statement like 'recorded albums sound better than live ones', or vice versa -- it's both unscientific and unpostmodern to make assumptive, dogmatic statements like these.
Specifically, 'it's both unscientific and unpostmodern to make assumptive, dogmatic statements like these.'
This statement is true because both postmodernism and science are, in there own ways, concerned with accuracy. Postmodernism does it by rejecting categorical analysis in its entirety, and science does it by looking at things really, really closely and comparing them. But both are opposed to making unexamined statements like 'all foreigners are stupid.' black-or-white, presumptuous, assumptive statements like these are both unpostmodern (because the postmodernist is unwilling to make a black-or-white statement about anything -- he's convinced of the 'incredulity of metanarratives' -- and unscientific because the terms of the analysis haven't been carefully defined.
By the way, lyotard's well-known 'definition' of postmodernism is a good one, but it presumes that everything is a metanarrative, if you take the postmodern approach away from its roots in literature and apply it to everything. I'm still not clear on the degree to which postmodernists assert that reality really does amount to text. It probably varies from po-mo to po-mo. The essential part of lyotard's statement is 'incredulity,' or the state of being uncertain or tending to engender skepticism. In other words, you can't 'believe' everything you 'read.' no statement, and no thing, is safe from deconstruction. The way our minds work, logically assigning and compartmentalizing with names and categories, is a poor metaphor for reality.
Science is similarly unwilling and unable to make definitive statements. Any given category or measurement can be multiplied or made more precise, and there is a ready acknowledgement that the method of dividing reality into 'this and that' does not in fact constitute 'this and that' in and of itself.
Furthermore, neither science nor postmodernism (as opposed to many scientists or postmodernists) asserts that it provides a complete portrait of reality.
Example time! Let's take an assertion: 'that apple is red' (really, 'apple red', similarly to the way this assertion would be expressed in many other languages):
We'll do a dialog between pomo and geek, who represent postmodernism and science, respectively. Let's listen to them discuss this statement:
POMO: what do you really mean by 'red'?
GEEK: we should examine 'red' more closely and see where we've erected the numerical parameters for the wavelength of 'red.' the problem is, color is a continuous spectrum with a continuous rate of change.
POMO: even if you picked a place for 'red' to be, it would be completely arbitrary.
GEEK: well, essentially yes.
POMO: what about 'apple'? What's an 'apple'?
GEEK: an apple is a thing with sufficiently similar properties to other things that we also call apples.
POMO: what do you mean by 'sufficiently'?
GEEK: well, I suppose it's a culturally agreed-upon quality, that culture being whatever forum the apple is being discussed or analyzed in.
POMO: you can't really say 'that apple is red.'
GEEK: you can say 'that apple is red,' but it's not a very precise statement.
Pomo and geek are essentially in agreement: analyses of reality (or metanarratives, if you like) are incredulous at best. Pomo deals with this by abandoning his categories altogether, and geek deals with it by making more and more categories, ad infinitum. But both agree that we have an inherently incomplete picture.
Ok, maybe I've been a tad harsh lately. I guess my goal shouldn't be 'total autistic sociopath,' but rather to be a little bit less neurotic and affected by other people. Take the middle path, as they say. This is, of course, more or less my number one problem in life: the inability to compromise between two extremes. I'm either an idiot or a genius. That's really the only example I can come up with, because I mutter one or the other to myself so often.
I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings with my recent blog-hostility, but I direct the reader, once again, to the warning. What I write here is my changing day-to-day craziness, and isn't an absolute statement on anything. I reserve the right to be as postmodern as I want to be -- here, there's no standard of truth, of logic, or of lack of contradiction. People waste too much time making sure they don't contradict themselves over time, but this is ridiculous on at least two levels: 1) there's no way anyone can possibly keep track of everything, and 2) the very concept of one idea opposing another is flawed. Also, the very concept of a concept being flawed is flawed.
I've posted outright fiction here before, and I probably will again. The reader would be well-served by not taking what they read in here very seriously. It's just a brain-dump, loosed for my own personal satisfaction and entertainment. I'm not out to communicate with anyone, much less manipulate anyone. And yet, at the same time, I find that the fact that this is a published journal keeps some logical standards and rigor of continuity in my writing that might not otherwise be there -- it keeps me sharp, and from falling into total rambling lunacy. I wonder how many pages I've written in total? In my life? How many words? Sentences? Phrases? Ideas?
Anyway, I re-connected my doorbell and turned my ringer back on. But I'm still off of AIM. Maybe I'll re-install it at some point. I'm in a good mood because I just re-designed candocanal.org of my own volition, and all of the association officers worship me. Mrs. White, whose house I'm just returning from now, made me vast amounts of food. Fatter I am getting.
People can't seem to get over the written word. It's profoundly powerful -- 'words that stay,' to quote a native-american bit in some movie. The written word can have more impact and import than those same words spoken (although the reverse can be true as well). For instance, nothing can be legally based on 'hearsay,' even when the words are exactly the same as when written. It's almost as if there's something mystical about the written word that transcends being. And it does, by definition. When one puts something down on paper (or on a server), a phantom is left behind of the present. Being, or the present moment and experience of reality, is recorded. It's a form of memory, which is in itself a pretty weird thing. When one thinks back, one can't replay, perfectly, the past 10 seconds. If we had no memory whatsoever, would any experience be possible? Not in the same way, I don't think.
I have a few more updates and minor corrections to candocanal.org to do. I'm feeling slightly better, I think. Maybe tomorrow I re-install AIM.
When confronted with reality, the human response can be modeled on a choice: approach it with zero/one/infinite categories, or divide it into smaller and smaller categories and precisely analyze each one in its discreetness. Each approach tends to work to different ends: mr. One-category is sort of scatterbrained, happy-go-lucky, intuitive, and looks at the 'big picture.' mr. Many-little-categories-and-there's-always-room-for-one-more tends to be analytical. This is why computer and natural scientists, mathematicians and engineers tend to be control-freaks -- they're always controlling their experiments, to use an obvious literal example. I don't recall meeting one of these folks who wasn't, in some capacity. If one abandons one's self so fully to the world-view of infinitesimally small categories in which to stuff and cram reality, this is going to produce some brain damage in the form of 'hints from heloise'-like behavior. I'm afraid the scientists have gotten it wrong. The postmodernists, the artists, the buddhists monks have it right, baby.
Of course, the very extreme irony in this case is that such an analysis, of striking the world into two oppositional groups (and proclaiming one the 'winner'), is indicative of the same kind of western-scientist brain-damage that I'm decrying. So, in order to embrace the non-dual transcendent in this case, one has to use one category and many categories at the same time. Or, even use good old fashioned western adversarial dualism, the 'george bush special,' good vs. Evil, the final battle, etc, and reconcile this with a view of the universe being one big chaotic mess, in some kind of nihilistic-dada-zen-science fusion. The scientist and the postmodernist don't have to be arch-enemies, even though they may annoy the fuck out of one another from time to time. To reconcile these two world-views, use your infinitesimal categories to move from point 'a' to point 'b,' but understand that they're a metaphor for and a poor model of the one ultimate category. We can try to understand, try to grasp, try to be a part of ultimate being, but in the meantime there are problems that need to be solved. I think. Or maybe they don't need to be solved. But just because you divide things into this and that doesn't mean that they have to stay this and that. If I could reconcile science and postmodernism, logic and zen, poetry and computer programming, then I'd have solved everything. All I can do is talk wistfully about the possibility, just like everyone else.
I'm going to have to think about this blog, and how it relates to my new revelation of separateness from the rest of humanity, and not being as debilitatingly available to everyone as I have been.
I dunno...for my own mental health reasons, it might be necessary to stop blogging, at least about personal subjects. If I have some theory to write about, then that's fine. But I don't think I'll be doing anymore writing about myself.
10 days till this blog's one year anniversary. I was thinking I should start culling the shitty entries, and categorizing the ones I want to keep. Then, I could organize it all into a hypertext online book of essays, and put it on my main site. I can already foresee problems with this approach, but I think it's still doable.
I need a job, so that I can save some money to escape.
I've been very weak, overly-accommodating and acquiescent. All throughout my life people have been taking advantage of that. I'm going to try to change that. For now, the easiest way to do it is just to block any and all access people have to me. Basically, to solidify my sense of self.
Next step: send everyone a personalized letter on exactly why I don't want them in my life, set up a permanent email vacation message, set the answering machine to announce-only. Generally reject society.
Goodbye :)