I had no idea that there was a world championship of Microsoft Excel, but if there's some 15 year kid (who seems to have some strange resentment towards "Asians") from England winning the thing, it's probably too late for me to develop mad Excel skills, win $5000, and finally feel good about myself for once. Oh well.

Something I will never think is a good idea: requiring internet service providers to keep track of everything anyone visits online and keeping those records for a year.

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee voted 19-10 for H.R. 1981, a data-retention bill that will require your ISP to spy on everything you do online and save records of it for 12 months. California Rep Zoe Lofgren, one of the Democrats who opposed the bill, called it a “data bank of every digital act by every American” that would “let us find out where every single American visited Web sites.”

Sure, the title makes the bill sound like something no reasonable person would oppose ("Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011"), but is creating an insane information police state regarding the internet the best way to keep porn away from children? If anyone thinks this database would only be used to fight child pornography, they're insane (RIAA, anyone?) I think I'd prefer law enforcement agencies get a warrant before snooping through my browsing history, but thanks anyway.

In Arizona news, both Arizonan members of the committee, Trent Franks (R) and Ben Quayle (R) voted to move the bill out of committee. You'd think Quayle would be sensitive to privacy issues concerned online behavior, but I guess he's moved on from the stage of his life.

For more information about this terrible, terrible proposal, visit the Electronic Frontier Foundation's site.

The above picture is a still from Barspace.tv - specifically, an image of what was happening at the Queen City Grill in Seattle when I happened to visit the site a few minutes ago. Barspace is a new website that features live feeds from bars in a few states, although not Arizona at the moment. Barspace pays for the cameras, the bar sets the hour the camera is on, and then theoretically, someone can see whether there are people at their favorite drinking establishment. You can see what you're in for at a new place before heading out of the house, or whether the bartender you've been trying to get the number for is working.

That doesn't seem all that bad or sinister, but do we really need to be streamed online while we're trying to relax? Are the minimal benefits that Barspace offers worth another camera following us wherever we go? Sure, quite a few bars have some sort of security or surveillance system, but those cameras aren't streaming online for anyone to see. According to an article in the East Bay Express, the ACLU is calling foul on these cameras on a privacy level, and I can't say I blame them, especially since the bars that have the cameras aren't obligated to let anyone know they're being filmed or broadcast on the internet.

There are few places left where we can kick back and be stupid for a little while. Why take that away? Just say no to Barspace, Tucson.

We've already established that animated GIFs are clearly the most exciting way to present graphics on the internet ("The Ron Swanson in a Tiny Hat Axiom"), so clearly, you're wondering how you can transform the visual moments of your own life into GIF form. Bask in the wonder of GIF Shop, which for $1.99 will bring your life meaning, in a jerky frame-by-frame format.

Seems about right.

Maybe scientists are just thinking of Rosie the Robot from The Jetsons when they try to make robots more lifelike and not of every frightening instance of when robot technology goes wrong and tries to exterminate the human race. I'm fine without a robot friend that will eventually turn on me, thanks.

[NY Times]

Hacker group Lulzsec, which has been on a data thievery rampage of late, including attacks on Sony, PBS, and the tv show X Factor, has made Arizona law enforcement its latest target. Making 700 confidential documents from Arizona Public Safety available on torrent sites, the group said in a press release that they were "targeting AZDPS specifically because we are against SB1070 and the racial profiling anti-immigrant police state that is Arizona". Some of the release includes personal information, including phone numbers and addresses of officers.

This seems like the set up for a great prank - a transforming beer can that shuffles across the table - but I think if you bought this robot, you should be prepared for one of your intoxicated friends to try to smash it due to their alcohol impaired inability to accurately assess fear.

[Laughing Squid]

Maybe you're not the sort that posts your drunken escapades or other wildly embarrassing moments online, but it might be worth taking a look at your Facebook privacy settings, especially since an employment screening company will be archiving all Facebook information left public for their use:

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has given the thumbs up to Social Intelligence Corp, which keeps files of Facebook users’ posts as part of a background-checking service for screening job applicants.

A spokesperson for Social Intelligence has clarified in an email:

Data is archived purely for compliance reasons and not used for any other purposes. This is to provide a verifiable chain-of-custody in case the information is ever needed for legal reasons. Archived data is never used for new screens.

As per our policies and obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the only information we collect on job applicants is employer defined criteria that is legally allowable in the hiring process. Examples of this include racist remarks, sexually explicit photos or videos, or illegal activity such as drug use

We are not building a database on individuals that will be evaluated each time they apply for a job and potentially could be used adversely even if they have cleaned up their profiles. It is important for job applicants to understand we are not storing their historical information to be used against them the next time they apply for a job.

Introducing the Talk-o-Meter, an app for the iPhone, which is wildly too expensive at $4.99 for what will likely be something you try a few times and forget about. The premise is to use some sort of voice recognition technology to determine who is hogging any two-person conversation with their anecdotes and observations. I suppose this could be useful in some relationships where equality in everything is the goal, but I'd like to think that if I'm monopolizing a conversation, it's because what I have to say is really important and worth the time of whomever is fortunate enough to hear the information I'm offering.

Also, a more effective way to let anyone know that they're using more than 50% of their fair share of the conversation using an iPhone is to queue this classic Run-DMC track on YouTube and let it blast: