The internet has sped things up tremendously. Now someone somewhere can come up with a brand new catchphrase, and have it become famous in less than 24 hours. Next day, "everyone" is using the new phrase all over the place. A week later, a different phrase is hip.

Meanwhile, in slowsville, a video game manufacturer puts one of the phrases into the game as a sort of culturally-relevant bonus.

Does it become out of date quickly? Maybe. But I think most video game makers are probably aware of how quickly certain fads shift online, and so they only choose to use ideas that seem steadfast and lasting.

I wonder just how fast things will get in 10 years?

I think it's going to be pretty cool.

So in the beginning there was the basic web functionality. Then came design improvements. And then again, better web design. And upgraded functionality!

Now a lot of web pages look amazing.

But I think there's something relatively new (to the average Joe) that will eventually become standard.

I think that in the future, most or all web pages will be able to update most or all of their content without reloading the page.

Sure, we've got that technology. Sure, those capabilities exist. But they haven't become widespread yet. And once that happens, they will be refined, and built into simple user interfaces as part of content management systems.

So then you'd do a tiny amount of work behind the scenes on your blog or site using a free, open-source CMS, and Presto! Your web page becomes truly dynamic. I can't wait.

I can't believe it. I just wrote about the PayPal phishing spam I got from paypal@securesuite.net. I guess since I didn't respond, the sender figures I must be French.

---

[Begin Email]

From: " Orange Votre Service Clients Internet " <paypal@securesuite.net>
Subject: noreply.internet@orange-ftgroup.com
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:25:47 +0100

Cher client Orange Internet,

Orange est déterminé à maintenir un environnement sain pour notre communauté de clients. Pour protéger la sécurité de votre compte, Orange emploie certains des systèmes de sécurité les plus avancés au monde et notre équipe anti- fraude écran régulièrement le système Orange pour toute activité inhabituelle.

Nous sommes avec vous pour rappeler que le 24 mars 2008 de notre équipe chargée de l'examen du compte identifié certains activité inhabituelle sur votre compte. Conformément à l'Accord d'utilisation de Orange et d'assurer que votre compte n'a pas été compromis, l'accès à votre compte a été limité. Votre compte d'accès restera limité jusqu'à ce que ce problème a été résolu.

Pour sécuriser votre compte et de rétablir rapidement un accès complet, nous pouvons exiger des informations supplémentaires de votre part pour la raison suivante:

Nous avons été informés que d'une Orange associée à votre compte a été signalé comme perdu ou volé, ou qu'il ya eu d'autres problèmes avec votre compte.

Ce processus est notre obligatoire, et si cela n'est pas accompli dans le temps le plus proche de votre compte ou de carte de crédit peuvent faire l'objet d'une suspension temporaire.

Pour sécuriser votre compte et de rétablir rapidement un accès complet, nous pouvons exiger des informations supplémentaires de votre part pour la raison suivante:

MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "jacquemard.biz" claiming to be ht tp://id.orange.fr/auth_user/bin/auth_user.cgi?origine=wg

S’il vous plaît à noter répondre à ce message.

Cette boîte aux lettres n'est pas suivi et que vous ne recevrez pas de réponse.

Merci pour l'aide de Orange

[End Email]

---

Ay dios mio! Let's just see what the old Alta Vista has to say about this…

Here's the Babel Fish Translation of the email message from French to English:

---

[Begin Translation]

Dear customer Orange Internet,

Orange is given to maintain an environment healthy for our community of customers.

To protect safety from your account, Orange employs some of the most advanced systems of safety in the world and our anti team defrauds screen regularly the Orange system for any unusual activity.

We are with you to recall that on 24 unquestionable March 2008 of our team in charge of the examination of the account identified unusual activity on your account.

In accordance with the Agreement of use of Orange and to ensure that your account was not compromised, the access on your account was limited.

Your account of access will remain limited until this problem was solved.

To make safe your account and to restore a complete access quickly, we can require additional information of your share for the following reason: We were informed that of an Orange associated on your account was announced as lost or stolen, or that it ya have other problems with your account.

This process is our obligatory, and if that is not accomplished in time nearest to your account or credit card can be the subject of a deferment.

To make safe your account and to restore a complete access quickly, we can require additional information of your share for the following reason: [Fraudulent Link]

Please to note to answer this message. This letter-box is not followed and that you will not receive an answer.

Thank you for the assistance for Orange

[End Translation]

---

Ok, so it seems that they want the same info as they did before, and for the same reason. "Somebody" tried to "break" "into" "my" account, and now it's "froooozennnn." Good thing I know French!

I wonder if everyone who got that old spam got this new one too? Or maybe just those who "failed" to act…

A friend of mine works at a TV ad agency, and he recently came across some research material describing ad placement techniques during television shows. You know, those annoying, intrusive blocks that obscure your favorite programming? Here's the text:

---

We have come to the conclusion that there are further steps that need to be taken in order to maximize ad effectiveness during television broadcasts. Seeing as how this is a fairly new market, overlay ads have many options that need to be considered.

Firstly, placement. Our research indicates a pattern which has been holding consistently for the past eighteen months. While most people tend to look away or ignore an ad when the programming area is compressed, and the ad is shown in the new empty space, they have less propensity to do this when the ad is instead placed over the viewing area. To be clear, we should not simply squeeze a television broadcast (i.e., a show) to make room for an ad. That gives the viewer incentive to limit their perception to just the program viewing area, and they completely ignore our advertisement. Instead, we must leave the show on 100% of the screen, and simply lay our ad over a portion of the entertainment content. Testing has produced evidence that the bottom portion is best. We can technically get away with doing this, since at the most we're only obscuring 20% of the viewing area.

In addition to the "where" issue, there is also the matter of "when." When is it best to show an ad? When viewers are paying the most attention. Therefore, researchers should be requisitioned to watch programs and determine when a viewer is more likely to be curious about the area displayed on the bottom of the screen. For example, during an episode of a mystery television show, the detective discovers a note. He reads it silently to himself, displaying it for the audience to see. Most of the text is near the bottom of the screen. In order to get maximum attention, we should allow the audience the "token second" to view the note, and then obscure it with a relevant ad. That way, we've just gotten our share of eyes which would otherwise have avoided us at all costs. But this is only the half of it.

Further tests indicate that there are far more appropriate moments to show advertising, even when the audience isn't looking at the bottom of the screen. This all comes down to the moment of climax. Most television shows and movies all work toward a short, compact moment, where audience focus is at its peak. Viewers watch from the beginning, are taken for a ride, and are eventually made aware that the most important moment of the show or film is going to occur at any given moment. When it does, they are riveted. We have found that ads obscuring show content during these intense climax moments are, on average, clearly perceived up to 300% more often than those overlaid during non-climax moments. What's more, due to the emotional intensity of these moments, the sales message of an ad will tend to last longer in a person's mind if received during the climax. So obviously, obscuring the most dramatic and intense moments with advertising is the way to go.

While these techniques do prove powerful, preliminary polling shows that audience members are becoming increasingly frustrated with having their programming directly obscured by ads, especially during the points of climax. One viewer even went so far as to say, "They ruined the whole show." But we feel that these frustrations will eventually fade, assuming we continue to effectively communicate that there's nothing viewers can do about it. Of course, even if their displeasure continues to grow, our bottom line is what matters most.

[This was handwritten at the bottom:]
If viewers think they can get away with watching content on the internet with the advertising removed, then we must make up for it by shoving our ads down their ungrateful throats.

---

Just kidding. I wrote the whole thing myself. But I think I captured the general truth of the matter…

A little while ago I made a post about how I felt I was "Getting Absorbed Into The Net." Then today I read an article on nytimes.com about how Korea takes "web obsession" seriously to the point that there is a boot camp to cure it.

I couldn't believe it. Really? There are people who have lost their lives to the net? Even if that were true, big deal, right? Then I remembered stories about people sucked into MMORPGs. Apparently (and this probably has happened more than once) a young guy killed himself after losing his character in the game. It was like the game was his whole life, and he couldn't imagine going on living after it was over.

So this is serious.

I'm a fan of the "Ghost In The Shell" anime. I'm more familiar with the show than the films. The setting is a futuristic world in which the net has become a true virtual reality, brain-to-net interfacing has been achieved, and prosthetic bodies are in apparent widespread use. If you had such a body, you'd look and act like any normal person, but you could also multitask and surf the net in your mind — even while driving. I believe artificial intelligence exists in the show as well.

In one episode, it was explained and depicted how many youngsters can become so absorbed into the net that they need professional treatment. It's like they withdraw almost completely from the real world. One of the solutions put into use was to allow the kids to surf the net, but only so they could write security programs. The programs the wrote, I believe, were highly effective.

It was shocking to read how South Korea, already mega-networked, has been encountering similar problems in the real world. One kid at the boot camp said how he felt that 17 hours a day online was no big deal. It became such an issue that he and others would skip school, not to surf, but to sleep, as they'd been up all night online. Apparently some people have even died from staying online playing games for days at a time. It's that crazy.

I personally don't think I have a problem with the net, but you never know. They say first your tolerance levels rise for sitting at the computer for extended periods. (Check.) After that you surf more and more, and if anything comes between you and your computer, you can become quite agitated. Thankfully I'm not there yet, nor do I plan to be.

I had just assumed that as the internet comes to play a bigger role in all of our lives, we'd naturally use it more often. But not nonstop. That same kid at the boot camp found that real-life success in physical endeavors was much more fun than playing games online. He said his new perspective might even cause him to reduce his time online from 17 hours a day to just 5. Yes, it sounds ironic, but at the same time 5 hours a day online is probably normal for a lot of people.

What a wild world we live in.

Mass hysteria!!!

But seriously, what would happen if all the computers everywhere suddenly no longer had access to the internet? All the servers go down, and suddenly we've got no email, no instant communication, and no online banking. Transactions are frozen in limbo, money is tied up, and people can't get word to one another as quickly and easily as before.

Enter the cell phone. Everybody starts texting or calling one another, using mobile devices as a way to bridge the communication gap that was suddenly created by a global lack of internet access. Everyone calls everyone else all at the same time, and overload whatever cellular systems hadn't already been taken out with the World Wide Web Crash. So now there's no internet, and no cell phone.

People again switch tools, and move to land lines. But there are far fewer land lines than cell phones. Indeed, many households with four cell phones have at most two separate land lines. Half the calls that would have been made on a cell phone never get made at all. Lines form at the telephone booths, riots ensue, communication breaks down, and progress suffers. The world hits a standstill.

Meanwhile, the Storm Worm hacks its way into the government's nuclear facilities, and launches on the Russians.

John Connor: "Why attack Russia? Aren't they our friends now?"
The Terminator: "Because SkyNet knows the Russian counter-attack will eliminate its enemies over here."

So, if the net went down, what would happen? People would turn to cell phones, then turn to land lines, and then turn to the window and squint at the mushroom clouds.