Quickie Wiki

The other day I was listening to an online radio sports talk show and they announced "This just in! Marion Barber retiring!"

Being a fan of the Cowboys and always enjoying watching Barber run the ball (his nickname was "Barbarian") when he played for Dallas, I did a quick search to see how well he had done after he had left the Cowboys. Quite a few results came up, most from football websites like NFL.com, ESPN, various fan sites and the official Cowboys site.

I also noticed news articles on Barber's announcement and most had "fifteen minutes ago" as the time the article was posted, which was about the same amount of time since I had heard the news on the online show. Also in the results was Barber's Wikipedia entry. I clicked on it and saw that it had already been updated with his retirement.

That wasn't surprising, though. It's been something I've been doing after hearing news of note - checking Wiki to see how fast it's updated. I've noticed that with other news stories, one recent one being the death of Whitney Houston. The Wiki entry for the last Super Bowl was changed to reflect the final score within moments of the game being over.

Now, you might think it's pretty sad or a sign of having too much time on my hands for me to check Wiki for updates when breaking news is announced. You would be correct, but what does it say about those who rush to the site to update the entry before anyone else?

---

Update to add: Another example would be that of the NBC show Celebrity Apprentice. It's just now ending as I type this, but the results/who won the challenge/who was fired has already been posted. I realize there are different satellite feeds, one earlier on the east coast, so that accounts for the quick update, but it would be a spoiler for anyone who read the Wiki entry before the show airs in their time zone.

A disclaimer: I've never watched Celebrity Apprentice much before this season and I haven't seen all the shows this year.  I watched a few of the shows last year because Meat Loaf and Gary Busey were contestants and they had a huge fight during one competition.  (either one could be/should be the poster child for "Just Say No")  I don't care much for Donald Trump and, for the most part, don't care much about celebrities. The thing I like the most about the show is watching the celebrities stab each other in the back in order to be kept on the show for the next week.

Pinuninterested

I had been hearing good things about Pinterest, an online "pinboard" used to organize and share your interests. I have a couple of Facebook friends who use it and several of my favorite recipe sites have also touted the service.

So, I went to the site and requested an invite.  I wondered why they made people do that; I would think that the normal procedure of filling out a few bits of information would do. I signed up and got a message saying I would be notified shortly.

Again, I wondered why I had to wait.  I really don't know why, but my suspicion is that they want people to think it's "exclusive" and it is a privilege to be allowed to join.  Several days went by and I finally got an email notifying me that I had been accepted and to click on a link.

As you can see, I was taken to my Facebook account and, as with so many of these things, I had to allow Pinterest to access my data and to let it post on my account.

This app may post on your behalf, including pinboards you created, pinboards you followed and more.

I really hate those apps.  It not only accesses my personal data, but that of my Facebook friends.  I want to be the one to share information, not some invasive application.  It also said it was going to update me to the new Timeline.  I've been putting that off, even though all Facebook accounts will go to that sometime this next week.  (I don't mind change, but I do not like that new format.  What's wrong with how they're doing it now?)

So, here's what I did with the invite.

Swimming in Conspiracy Theories

I subscribe to Alex Jones on Facebook, not that I'm such a big fan of conspiracy theories, but because I used to listen to his radio shows on late at night and found them both amusing and entertaining. (Along with Art Bell's Coast to Coast AM) It was also a good way for me to fall asleep, much better than listening to music. It wasn't the show or subject manner that amused me the most, but rather the callers.

The Alex Jones Facebook page is no different; just the other day there was a post about the recent Clintonville "booms" and it brought the crazies out of the woodwork.  Some posters claimed the govt. was responsible (which makes up the highest percentage of blame in most conspiracy theories) while others said it was aliens and a few blamed fracking (the hydraulic fracturing of formations to release the oil or gas.  Fracking is one of the latest controversial subjects that serves as the blame for people's water catching on fire, pollution of water aquifers and gingivitis. OK, just kidding on that last.  Fracking will be the subject of a future rant, so stay tuned!)

As is nearly always the case, there were posters who disregarded the subject at hand and wanted to bring up their own pet conspiracy theory.  One guy said we all should Google "New Navy Maps".  Usually these things don't interest me (as a Ron Paul supporter who frequents several forums devoted to him, I've grown extremely weary of this stuff), but I never had heard of that, so I did some quick research.

In a nutshell, this is supposed to be one of the new maps the U.S. Navy will use in the near-future.  As you can see by the graphic below, large sections of America will be flooded.

---

NOTE:  Image was removed, prob. by Google/Blogger because I used it without permission.  To be honest. I didn't think it was such a big deal;  it was a crudely drawn map with areas of America underwater.  I tell ya, these conspiracy nutjobs don't have a sense of humor.   If whoever turned me in is reading this:  sorry you got upset, sorry you can't make a better graphic and sorry that you're such an anal retentive asshat.

---

Many theories were put forth as to why so much of the U.S. will be submerged; Fracking (again ), global warming, intentional diverting of the Mississippi river (which doesn't account for the east and west coasts being under water) as well as many others.

I'd have to look at a topographical map, but it looks to me like the water just blows right through part of the Rocky Mountains.

If this comes to pass, it might be a good idea to buy stock in a boat building company or maybe get some of that good-for-nothing-else desert land in Arizona and New Mexico...which will be ocean front property then.

Maybe it would be better to invest in a company that makes tin foil?

The Story In Your Eyes - Moody Blues

One of my most favorite songs from one of my most favorite groups

---

Your Inner Sloth Name

Find The Name Of Your Inner Sloth

My inner sloth name? "Bilbo The Loitering Dummy"

That's about right.

Multi-Tasking

I recently subscribed to List25 and this post hit my reader earlier this morning:

25 Things Psychology Tells You About Yourself

#20 validated something I've always believed, namely that people really can't multi-task. From the article:

We know, you are a professional multi-tasker. Unfortunately, if you really believe that, you are also overly self confident, because the truth of the matter is that humans cannot multi-task. At least not in the sense of the term that we often use. While you can certainly walk around while talking to your friend, your brain can only focus on one higher level function at a time, which means you cannot be thinking about two things at once.

While it doesn't qualify as a "pet peeve" of mine, it's always slightly annoyed me to hear people say that. I think I'm fairly capable of performing multiple tasks, but I've always known I can do only one thing at a time. For example, I can build something out of wood, but there's no way I...or anyone else...could cut out the pieces, sand them and nail them together all at the same time.


I've never heard a man saying he can multi-task - it's always been women who have said it. (and I'm not picking on the fairer sex here, just stating something from my own experience)  I think these women who say this confuse their ability to juggle tasks - go from one to another with ease- with the true definition of multi-tasking. I think women have superior organizational skills and can accomplish more in a shorter time than can men, but that's not multi-tasking.

The first time I ever heard the term used was by an old classmate who lived nearby me a few years ago.  We were both going back to school at the time and I used to go over and visit her and her family.  She would be "studying" with the TV on all the while yelling at her kids for being kids.  I mentioned to her that she really needed a quiet place to study and she replied that she was an excellent multi-tasker and could handle it.

She failed several courses that semester and had to take them over.

I forget what show I saw it on, but they did a hidden camera study of people sitting down to eat in a restaurant.  They filled the nearby tables with other people talking about all sorts of things:  behind the test subjects was a couple where the guy was breaking up with the girl, at another table were two women talking about the affairs they were having and at another table were some people talking about a crime they were going to commit.  They all had been instructed to talk in low voices but loud enough to be overheard by the test subjects. 

One of the tests featured a couple, a man and his wife.  The woman was trying her best to hear all the controversial talk and was getting frantic and her food was untouched.  She whispered to her husband "Did you hear that?"  The man looked up from shoveling food in his mouth and grunted "Huh?"  He said he had heard the couple talking about breaking up and decided it was none of his business so he tuned them out and went back to eating.

The gist of the study was that people can TRY to do several things at once but it won't work.  In fact, when they do try, they can't do even one thing very well. Cases in point: I wonder how many automobile accidents have been caused by the driver talking on a cell phone, changing the radio station or lighting a cigarette?  I was reading an article about the Autobahn in Germany, the no speed limit super highway and that most German cars (for sale in Germany) don't have cup holders because they know that driving should be the sole focus of the driver. (I don't know if that's true...just because I read it on the 'net doesn't make it so, but it makes a lot of sense)

Multi-tasking - ain't no such thing.

The rest of the article is interesting and I urge you to read it.  Something else I've always known is #6:

You can sustain a high level of attention for approximately 10 minutes

The operative word is "approximately". I think that 10 minute time is generous for most men. I know it is for me.

---

UPDATE:

This was a featured article on my Yahoo start page this morning:

The High Cost of Multitasking

There is a poll embedded in the side column and 76% of the respondents claimed to be good at multi-tasking.