USPS Clubs Baby Seals

I wanted to title the post "USPS Has No Sense Of Humor", but I was not trying to be funny. I was serious. I considered my mail serious art. Yet USPS rejected it. So much for the trouble. The title honestly reflects how I feel about USPS, justified or not.

The story begins when I read a post on creative young fellows at Syracuse University who came up with the concept of a Google Maps Envelope. Read the post before proceeding with my story here.

The creative folk I am, I decided to try it myself and after a couple of hours of experimenting with Google Maps and MS Word, came up with this masterpiece (addressed to a friend):

Then I waited for my friend to receive it, before I can post about it on Facebook. Little did I know that USPS isn't in the business of fostering creativity. Two days after I posted the envelope, I find my own mail in my mailbox, returned to sender. Here's the clubbed baby seal:

Yeah, they returned it. The envelope was still unopened, but I saw signs of (unsuccessfully) trying to pry it open without tearing it. I am glad that my glue was strong enough for them. I am glad for them too, because the letter inside was in Hindi which they wouldn't have understood anyway.

I knew I must have fallen foul to one of USPS' commandments, so I got searching on their website. Sure enough, their Delivery Address page listed my innumerable heinous crimes, including:

• (Not) All capital letters
• Punctuation
• (Not) Two spaces between State and ZIP
• (Not) Black ink on white or light paper
• Fancy fonts and background patterns

I think the last two got me. Looking at the Return Address page, I noticed that I also made the mistake of not placing the return address on top left corner. This may explain why my address is crossed out, but I have always used this format (including over two dozen mails in US), so I don't know why it should matter.

So party's over guys. Concept is cute as a baby seal, but USPS would club it. Now don't try this at home...I mean don't try this in USA.

TGFI

I hereby proclaim myself as the creator and the sole author of the expression "TGFI", which I define as "Thank Google For It".

The acceptable usage is to thank Google for things that have been made possible because of Google's initiatives. Specifically, where it brought about change in the way the world (or tech companies in general) behaved.

Examples of good use (where Google has been an innovator):

• I used to get only 2 MB on my webmail. Now I get over a gigabyte. TGFI.
• Wow! Nokia opened its Ovi Store and now we all can get free voice navigation on our GPS phones. TGFI.

Examples of still acceptable use (where Google does it well):

• I was able to complete my assignment on time although I knew nothing about the topic with 3 hours to go. TGFI.
• Take that. I can take a virtual tour of Paris from the comfort of my home on Google Maps. TGFI.

Examples of unacceptable use (where Google is clearly lacking behind; except when it done for irony):

• With Orkut I can now connect with everyone I know virtually. TGFI.
• With knol, I have finally found a way to share my expertise with the world. TGFI.

Use of lower case "tgfi" is also acceptable. Feel free to use it as long as you don't take credit for inventing the word. You don't have to credit me for it, but I will be glad if you do. This expression is hereby released to the wilderness of the internet.

Note: The word is based on the expression "TGIF", which is a Public Domain word. Use of "Google" in the expression is allowed under fair-use.

Ironical Timelines

A Search Engine, a free Webmail, a web browser, an operating system, and a programming language. This seems to be the history of Google: Google Search (1997) < Gmail (2004) < Chrome (2008) < Chrome OS (2009) < Go (2009). Ironically, this is also the reverse Chronology for Microsoft: MSN Search (1998) > HoTMaiL (1996) > Internet Explorer (1995) > Windows (1985) > BASIC (1975).

Matter of Ego

It is a truth universally acknowledged that every single reviewer in possession of good knowledge chooses Flickr over Picasa. Flickr is way better than Picasa is most respects, but of course this is not to say that Pisaca is junk! There are some great features in Picasa, with the added advantage that it has a small learning curve and a download button!

If the last part of the above paragraph took you by surprise, let me recap a bit. I have been a big fan of Flickr for a long time now, and being an avid photo-enthusiast have a "pro" (paid) membership on Flickr. However, it has been very difficult for me to convert my friend Shubhasish (a Picasa fan) to Flickrhood. Just as my discussions on comparative advantage of Dual degree over BTech hits a road-block when the issue of Mess Food crops up, my monologue on the greatness on Flickr unfailingly gets him to ask: "But how do you download an Album/Set on Flickr?"

Flickr does not have native set download feature, but there are many third-party apps that offer the functionality. I promised to send over a link of one such good service, but I knew my job won't be easy. This was somewhat like comparing apples to oranges (linguists, please come up with something better. I am sick of using this apple-orange analogy over and over again). While Shubhasish shares all his photos publicly, I prefer to keep my private photos private and share only generic photos with the rest of the world. Thus while sharing my photosets with him, I usually pass him on a "guest pass", which allows him to access the private photos uploaded by me. Now were I sharing all my photos publicly, it would have been easy for me to pass on the most easy-to-use software to download Flickr photos. Dozens exist is the market, allowing users to download high resolution images from public albums/sets (some even allow downloading private images from own sets after authorization). However, referring a software that does the apple-apple comparison so well but fails to satisfy the purpose (of being able to download the whole set in one go) would have made the dialogue complicated and done little to set the scores once and for all. What I was looking for is a software that can recognize a guest pass and authorize the user to download the set. While the debate continued, I gave myself a TwentySecondGoogle challenge but was unable to find it. I saved my energy for the time being and moved on.

Later, while ego-surfing the web (not in the traditional way, but for my own ego...How dare he compare Flickr with Picasa! Huh!), testing softwares one after the other, my hanging suspicion soon became a confidence that it you can't teach softwares to recognize guest passes. So my search space was reduced to software codes that work inside the browser itself: Firefox extensions and Greasemonkey scripts. There was light at the end of the tunnel, and soon I stumbled on to this cool hack (thanks Juan). Quite surprisingly, in order to download the set, you need both Firefox extensions and Greasemonkey scripts. Assuming most people I get in touch with are already on Firefox, it requires three additional softwares/plugins/codes to set the show. But once done, I was impressed with the effectiveness of the hack. Just in a matter of one or two clicks, you can get the whole set on your hard disc. It just made life so simple. A native support of photoset download from Flickr would have been great, but this hack goes miles to show how robust Flickr's API is. I was quick to refer Shubhasish to the trick, which he promised to try.

Coming back to the issue of who's better, a true Flickerian wouldn't want to get into the debate because even as of today, Picasa is way-way behind Flickr. Picasa is just a new kid on the block. If Flickr is a country with centuries of glorious history, Picasa is hamlet settled a few weeks back. It is easy for people to compare storage space, navigation options, integration, etc. between the two services. In fact some may find them comparable. However there's something about Flickr that's totally missing on Picasa: The community experience. If you are on Flickr, you feel so much as a part of a rich and vibrant community of photo-enthusiasts. It is a lively place to be in. The whole world of Flickr is built around sharing and discussing wonderful photos. Picasa, with its best integration feature, is as good as a folder on your computer. You have great access and control over what you have, but there is complete isolation from the world. There is no way of finding out what "interesting photos" your neighbours are coming up with. There is no way of having a lively discussion on a particular photo. There is no way of getting a photo recognized as a great snap. There is no way of finding out the capabilities of your camera. Yes, there is a learning curve associated with it. It is akin to understanding the customs and laws of the nation as against those of a small village community. Picasa would grow, I am sure, and probably one day challenge what Flickr is. We don't know who will win. But even in these days of fast changing internet landscape, I am sure that the battle is still years away.

TwentySecondGoogle: A trademark formula used by me. If I am searching for something specific on Google, and can't find it in the first 20 seconds, there is 95% chance that I will never find it, and very likely, the thing doesn't exists in the indexed web.

Super-ego

About one year back when I used to do ego-surfing, I used to find this link as the top one. What was more humiliating was the fact that on the top of the page there was a text that read "Do you mean Anuj Saxena". I was determined to change this. The top link, though mentioned the real 'me', wasn't there because I made it do. It was because the page was one from IIT and was shown as a relevant link just because my name appeared there.

What I planned to do is change the scenario where:

1) The top entry should be the one I create (i.e. under my full control), and
2) Remove that nagging "Anuj Saxena" from the top.

I thought that this would be very easy and decided to create a web-page of my own and wait. Unfortunately, even after making a web page of my own with more than 150 pages, there was hardly any change on the front page of the results. More disturbing was the fact that my webpage wasn't getting indexed. I tried a few hopeless stunts, but failed and gave up.

Then without meaning to do it, I did something that accomplished the first task. I started blogging. And some one month back, when I did some more ego-surfing I was happy to find that the top entry is my own self. This re-ignited the spark that wanted to accomplish the second task. I began to follow my blogs and kept on doing ego-surfing more often. Then I met with the surprise. The top link was no longer my blogger profile, but my Humour Blog. Ok....I comforted myself. Atleast it still belongs to me. This made sense too as my Humour Blog is my most read one. What I didn't knew that I was in for a greater surprise. A few days later, the top entry changed again and started to point to this blog of mine, which I believe is one of the least followed as it is getting stale because of lack of updates. What was more surprising was that the Humour Blog was nowhere to be seen and some other (irrelevant) pages are on their way up.

This does not makes sense to me considering the algorithm I feel Google follows.

Can anyone expain.

Smart Talk

The day before yesterday, I was shaken out of ignorance by my next-door-neighbour. He informed me that Google has recently launched its messaging client, Google Talk. Looked like a fancy name to me. Why say talk when what you actually do is type. Anyway, being a Google-worshipper, it was my responsibility to download anything with the word Google in it. I opened the site to find the installation ready to be downloaded. I chose to ignore the blah-bhah written on the upper part of the page. I found that the installation file was 900kB. I didn't expect any better, but here was it. I knew downloading this file would take a lot of time (the condition in which I was in, every second counted and hence, 10 minute download would have killed me). Just then I remembered the mighty old DC++. I knew if I had found it, so would have many more people who are geeker and freaker than me. I turned on the client to find the download ready to be started. I pressed the PANIC button. The download didn't even take a second. The installation was a breeze. But the interface disappointed me. I wanted it to be flashier. But anyway, it was in working condition. The first thing I did was inviting everyone in my message list who had GMail ID. Then, to chat with my next-door-neighbour, I clicked his name's tab. A window appeared that said: Calling so-and-so....What the hell, Yahoo! was better in that, it need not attempt to call in order to start chatting. It was then I realized that using Google Talk, I could actually talk to people apart from regular chatting. The talk window appeared as I had clicked the right corner of the rectangle. And it was lot better than Skype. The best thing was the quality of sound. This software had an amazing feature of background noise reduction that was a lot better than others, if at all existed in them. I became a fan of it. For the next one day I saw the bubble growing as big as the Earth itself. Almost 30 people had been added to my list itself. And the funniest part was the plight of Yahoo! Messenger.

Almost 70 percent of those online on Yahoo! Messenger were advertising for Google Talk. Many of them had their GMail ID as well posted as status message. And I found out that same was the case with most people's message list. In one day I was aware of the features and drawbacks of the software. Here's what I had assimilated.

One of the key features missing in Google Talk is Emoticons support. I don't think that will be a big problem at all. The client can identify most of the common emoticons and displays them as Blue coloured bold-face text.

The second thing missing is attractive theme. At its current Vanilla theme, it is not at all pleasing to the eyes. Also, I feel that the message archive facility is not too good (I am not satisfied with the way it shows all past information in each of the chat windows). A categorized and separate view like Yahoo! Messenger would cerainly have helped. And why call it Google when you can't search for anything in your past history message records. Hopefully Google will sort out this problem soon.

When I was thinking about it, a new idea came to my mind. If they can archive text message, why not voice chat? As the voice chat works smoothly over the net, it must be consuming less than 2~3KBPS. With the practically free storage we have, I don't think anyone will mind the feature. Of course if you don't want it, you may turn it off. Sounds are something a man/woman cherishes more than text. Wouldn't it be better to be able to hear your last talk with your girlfriend or the directions your friend gave for reaching the party venue? I suppose it would.

I heard many people complain that it doesn't support sending SMSs to mobile phones or calling phone numbers as other providers do. I believe its just a matter of time before this thing gets added to the client.

When I was browsing through various critic's blogs on Google Talk, I was marvelled to find people explaining their theory on Google products yet to launch. These include Google OS (a distributed computing based OS more powerful than Windows and as bug free as Linux), Google Video Search (archive of old TV serials), Google acquiring miles of hi-speed cables, the Wi-fi's, etc. The good thing about rumours is that only time can tell whether they are correct or not. But I pray that they are. I pray for Google's success. Because it had a big hand in shaping what I am. And as one of our Professors pointed out:"You people should give a part of your salary to Google, for without it, you could not manage to pass out as engineers."

Google Whack!

The last week had been very hectic. I couldn't even write a blog since the past 5 days even though I so much wanted to.

The reason is, I watched David Gorman's Google Whack Adventures and can't help myself expressing my comments on it. For those who haven't seen it, I would suggest that you do and stop reading ahead as you will kill the suspense.

The story is based upon a true(well, he claimed it) story of David Gorman who embarked upon a journey through the countries meeting Google Whackers. Here are me reflections and comments on the story....

1) He claims that the story is true based upon the authenticity of tatoo he has on his arm, his boarding passes and his photographs in the various towns with significant people and places. I must say, to have a false story with all these proofs is a very tough job.

2) The accounts I found on different people's website he met seem to confirm his account of the story. This again is very difficult.

3) But what surprises me most is the fact that he never seemed to be stranded for Visa! The New Year day he talks about, he got drunk and found himself in Washington. Hey, you need to have a Visa to cross the border. Morover as he got drunk late in the night, how can you expect him to get the Visa then? Also when he was going to Sydney, we again seem to see that he left U.S.A. within a day of deciding to go to Sydney. If anyone of you can understand how do you get Visa late in the night, and when you are drunk, and when you want it immediately!

4) Another funny thing I observed that all the Google Whacks he mentioned in the show are no more Google Whacks. Apparently, the story is of 2001, and since then so many people have written about this show that the word that he found first (Dork Turnspit) now has over 181 results, and the one that led him to the other David Gorman (Unscrupless Superegos) results in 122 pages.

After watching the movie, two of my friends began their Google Whack Adventures by finding Google Whacks. One of them (Jena parthasarathi) has found 4 until now, while Debabrata Pani has found 5.

This reminds me that yesterday, Debabrata Pani wrote me a very flattering testimonial for my Orkut Profile. I think I can forgive him for misquoting my IQ as 148 when its 149. God....I really miss it. The website said that 150 onwards is genius. I became really frustrated when I saw that missing (+1).