Poll: Should I accept Facebook friend requests from strangers?

I've had a few interesting friend requests on Facebook lately. All have come from people I've never met or worked with. I've never interacted with them in any way. And I've never even heard of them, to the best of my recollection. They put the "Total" into "Total Stranger". (I'd say they put the "Strange" in there, but I'm reserving judgment.)

Friends of mine may have recommended they contact me and ask to be friends. Or, maybe not. Maybe they just think I'm globally influential. Or really hot.

These people range from someone who went to the same college as me (within a year of me), to a record company executive with an impressive resume.

I may have been recommended to the former by some mutual alum, but I never got a Facebook notification about it... just the straight-up friend request.

The latter — the music industry man — has something like 2,300 people on his Friends List. Now, although I happen to have a couple of shiny sales awards on my wall, I really doubt I can be of any business-networking aid to this fellow... since I haven't done anything musical in something like a decade. And I never was "in the business." Which makes me wonder why he would send a friend request to this particular stranger. I mean, my profile page isn't one of those "celeb" things where people collect "fans". On the other hand, we do have 6 mutual friends, from two totally different circles in the entertainment industry. Again, no friend referral notice... just the out-of-the-blue request.

My notion of the Facebook profile and the Friends List has always been that you only add people you know personally. And people who are willing to tolerate your idiosyncrasies — or the flip side of that coin, people with whom you're probably relaxed enough to be yourself.

If I expand my FBFL sphere to allow anyone who asks — spammers excluded — should I / will I have to start editing my profile to make it super-businesslike, for fear of random funny posts besmirching my ever-so-serious [*koff*] industry rep?

So my poll question is this: Who do you accept as a Facebook Friend? And/or what would you suggest I set as my standard?

1) Only the people who know where the bodies are buried— and brought a shovel.
2) Fellow gravediggers, plus hearty party partners.
3) Gravediggers, party partners, plus anyone who can pimp my career.
4) Gravediggers, party partners, career pimps, plus casual hand-shakers
5) Anyone who has enough computer skill to click on my name— except spammers.
6) Every Tom, Dick or Harriett who sends the word "Friend" to within a 1,000-mile radius of me.

What say you? Insular, promiscuous, or somewhere in between?

On a Subscription-Based Web

Originally posted by me at The New Digital Cinema group on Facebook:

All pr0n aside, subscription-based web sites have been all but dead for quite some time now... Their passing isn't a result of the recent economic downturn. Content providers learned a while back that the subscription model doesn't work-- or at least didn't work while there/are were plenty of comparable ad-supported alternatives available.

Salon tried a subscription model for a year. The New York Times held out longer. But both of these and many more have torn out the toll booths between users and content.

There are very few audiences who are willing to pay directly, possibly because we've gotten so used to broadcast TV's long ad-based availability. (Those of you who remember the Beeb's Big-Brotheresque monitoring vans rolling by, with subsequent fines being levied may be exempt from this mindset.)

Then again, you might think that paid services like cable and satellite television would have cured us of this sense of entitlement. But we have to consider that cable and satellite are probably more often considered to be semi-agnostic delivery services rather than content providers, since they bundle such a large [sic] selection of networks and services. While a few networks are found exclusively on one provider or another, the majority are available on all.

This may be a clue to a viable future model; large numbers of sites banding together under a single subscription price. In the near-term, lots of general-interest, or financial or sports sites bundled into separate subscription packages. Later (or maybe sooner than later) more consolidation could take place, with variety packages offered, much like the collection of networks and channels provided with basic cable.

Much as Philip was saying, porn producers are already there, offering several sites for a single price -- or so their bot-net spammers tell me.

All this bundling would be a throwback to the days when services like AOL, WebTV, Prodigy, @home, et. al. provided connectivity and content. But users of Der Intertuben are more sophisticated now, and prefer a neutral ISP, along with access to anything and everything. And look where users have left those services...

Because of this, bundles that are limited in scope by media conglomerate ownership might not be as appealing; we're used to cable and satellite delivering a variety of networks owned by a variety of parent companies (Viacom notwithstanding).

ISPs on the other hand, could provide neutrality, but still offer special co-branded packages of bundled content. Some do today, but the content seems to be delivered by B-grade providers, or limited deals with individual media giants, or their own in-house operations that pale in comparison to third-party offerings. These packages are no more than perqs, rather than real attempts at providing a serious selection of content.

I think one of the keys to profitability might a tiered service, with some ad-supported content available to all users, and premium content available only to subscribers. But only if those subscribers are able to access premium content on many different sites with that one subscription.

Naturally, this could also encourage producers to improve their game, in order to create a real difference between free-access content and the paid stuff.

So... maybe a second generation of bundled content providers would understand that they may not be able to filter and control everything a subscriber sees and hears... but that they can still make a buck if they can play nice with others, and provide enough premium content at a price users are willing to pay.

If consumers can have a net-neutral ISP and access to the whole Width of the Wide World 'O Web, while also getting one or more packages of varied, high-quality premium content, across multiple sites and from multiple providers, the subscription model might actually work for everybody.

Majel is in the house, and all is right with the world

According to Variety:

Majel Barrett-Roddenberry will reprise her role as the voice of the starship Enterprise computer in J.J. Abrams' upcoming "Star Trek" feature. She's voiced the role in four "Star Trek" TV series and three films.

While I'm not sure I agree with J.J.'s choice of a super-sleek, bright-white starship interior design, he's definitely on the mark when it comes to casting this role.

Thank you, J.J.. Clearly, you are a righteous dude.

One of the Good Guys: Paul Newman

It's a beautiful Saturday morning. I planned to go for a walk through downtown, while the pollution is low. But CNN just broke in with an update that has me sitting down to remember... Paul Newman.

That's strange in itself. Having to remember him, in the past tense. He and his many television, stage and film personae have been with us for so long, his auto-racing exploits have been so widely covered, and his legendary generosity has been such an influence that he's become a part of our lives. But now, Paul has lost his long battle with cancer.

When most of us remember him, we'll remember his roles. The usual suspects come to mind, but his acting career -- which started in 1952 -- has produced a huge range of characters. When he started out as a young television actor, he was a utility player, portraying everyone from a regular Joe at a boxing match to Nathan Hale and Plato.

In 1956, he starred as prize fighter Rocky (Graziano) in Somebody Up There Likes Me, but 1958 was The Year of Paul Newman. It's an age-old cliche, but it really applies here... Newman's career exploded onto the big screen with three influential movies, and four influential characters in a single year: "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" / Brick Pollitt. "The Left Handed Gun" / Billy The Kid. "The Long, Hot Summer" / Ben Quick.

The list of roles Paul Newman played would be any actor's dream. Israeli activist Ari Ben Canaan, pool hustler Fast Eddie Felson, steamy Chance Wayne, the ruthless Hud Bannon, Nobel Prize winner Andrew Craig, rebellious inmate Cool Hand Luke, escape planner Pvt. Harry Frigg, and Indy car driver Frank Capua.

Then came another leap in his fame and stardom: Butch Cassidy, and the cult classic Judge Roy Bean. Newman was Joseph Rearden in The MacKintosh Man -- one of my sleeper picks. Then The Sting's Henry Gondorff, and the architect of the Towering Inferno, Doug Roberts, followed by a lighter Newman as Reggie 'Reg' Dunlop in Slap Shot.

I'm a science fiction fan, and one of my favorite Newman pictures is Robert Altman's often-overlooked modern ice age movie, Quintet, with Newman as Essex. The film has its flaws, but Newman delivers as always, and in the kind of world he's never been seen in before or since.

In 1981 came tough cop Murphy in Fort Apache the Bronx, followed by legal pic roles Michael Colin Gallagher and Frank Galvin in Absence of Malice and The Verdict. He cranked up his crotchety side as Harry Keach in Harry & Son.

Newman was nominated for Best Actor Oscars seven times and received a special honorary Academy Award in 1986. He topped that honorary award the following year, when he won a Best Actor Oscar for his much-anticipated and widely-praised reprise of Fast Eddie Felson in The Color of Money.

The final phase of his career included nuke builder Gen. Leslie R. Groves, Hudsucker industrialist Sidney J. Mussburger and Sully Sullivan in Nobody's Fool. Newman played father to a younger generation of leading man as Dodge Blake, dad of Kevin Costner in Message in a Bottle. Roles in Road to Perdition as John Rooney and Cars as the voice of Doc Hudson showed that Newman still had his chops, late in his professional life.

What can you say about an incredible career like Paul Newman's... except to touch on the man's life outside of film. Rarely has a celebrity been as well known for their unassuming demeanor and quiet, far-reaching philanthropic efforts.

His 50-year marriage to Joanne Woodward was a stand-out in the entertainment community. And his generosity is the stuff of legend. In 1994, Newman received the Academy's Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award. Famous for his Hole-in-the-Wall Gang camp for seriously ill children, and for donating all proceeds from his Newman’s Own brand products to educational and charitable causes, Paul Newman was truly one of a kind in terms of giving.

Through all of his diverse characters and all of his real-life stories runs a single thread: integrity. Even when he was playing a bad guy, Paul Newman was definitely one of the good guys.

The debate: in case you were napping

During tonight's debate, I think we all should have played a drinking game: everybody takes a drink every time McCain patronizingly says "what Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand."

No, wait-- then we would all have been dead from alcohol poisoning by the end.

Senator Obama clearly understood absolutely everything he spoke about, and in tremendous depth and detail. While Obama discussed the facts and what he would do, McCain repeatedly resorted to vaguely chanting about how experienced he is and what he, the experienced [read: insider] candidate can do, and relating anecdotes that he and his campaign calculated would appeal to the gut reactions of the right.

What Senator McCain doesn't seem to understand is that folksy stories aren't what we need. We need a president who knows the nuances of policy, of international relations, of economic checks and balances, that are vital to getting the country back on track-- not a president who pouts and stamps his feet and refuses to engage adversarial nations. The silent treatment has been proven a failure again and again and again, not only with North Korea, but throughout the Cold War and broader history.

What Senator McCain doesn't seem to understand is that he's stuck in a nationalist / adventurist / shoot-first mentality that will be the death of this republic if allowed to continue to saturate the actions of an Imperial White House.

McCain showed once again that he's an idealogue who bases decisions on presumptions. Obama proved once again that he's a pragmatist who studies the issues and crafts a policy based on a calculated outcome.

Some of the pundits are saying this was a tie. Apparently, they were watching a re-run of a previous election's debate.

For anyone who gauged the outcome on how much we learned about how each of the candidates thinks, and what actions they would take on various issues... well... Barack kicked the old man's ass.

Blowin' up: Sa Dingding

Every once in a long while an artist or a particular song comes along... and gives me chills. Sa Dingding, a Chinese singer, and DJ Full Phatt have done it with this remixed version of her song "Alive", from the debut album of the same name.

According to KCRW, this mix is available on an import release, but after Gargling, I discovered that the label has also made it available as a free download; the MP3 is here. While the Full Phatt Remix is more westernized and electrified, the rest of the tracks on the album lean a bit more toward acoustic instrumentation and Sino-centric sounds, and I'm sure many will note a New Age influence, although this stuff won't have you napping after a few bars.

Ms. Sa's voice moves effortlessly from the bright, traditional violin-like beam of light to a blues-influenced, breathy sensuality-- within the span of a single phrase. Invoking ancient Chinese or Mongolian culture and a chilled urban groove at once is an accomplishment in itself.

I could rave for paragraphs, but words can't replace a listen. Enjoy (iTunes affiliate link):

Joe Lieberman tries to Rove the convention

From the What Were They Thinking Department:

I've respected Joe Lieberman, off and on, for his willingness to be independent. I thought he would have made a decent VP to Al Gore's Presidency.

But now he's rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, all the while assuring us that the Republican ship of state is unsinkable.

In October of 2006, Lieberman decided to call himself an "Independent Democrat". Not just as some sort of media-branding tool, but officially, for the record. That was a bit of a head-scratcher, but tactically understandable in that he'd lost the Democratic ticket bid for his seat.

When asked "Would you unequivocally caucus with the Democrats?" Joe said: "Oh, come on. I’ve said that 1200 times.... Yes. Yes!"

In December, 2007, Lieberman announced he'd be backing McCain for president. Now there's a declaration. It calls up images of Lieberman perched on the bow of the Titanic, screaming "Look at me! I'm independent! King of the world!"... showing that it's possible to take the independent thing to an illogical extreme.

And yet, asked in July of 2008 if he would start voting with the Republicans to hand them the majority, he said "I don't have any intention of doing that before the end of this session of Congress." Really, Joe? This isn't independence. This is navigating without a map, a compass, GPS, landmarks, stars...

Now, at the Republican National Convention, Lieberman says "In the Senate, [Obama] has not reached across party lines to get anything significant done, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party."

Wow. As if throwing support behind Mr. 90%-With-Bush weren't bad enough, now Joe's decided to start telling obvious lies? What sort of efforts would Joe call "significant"? As Obama advisor Robert Gibbs said, the senator worked with Sen. Richard Lugar to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists and with Sen. Tom Coburn on the budget. Just for a couple of examples. And the last time I checked, those guys were Republicans.

If forging a solid budget and preventing terrorists from getting nukes aren't "significant" enough for you, Joe, what is? Perhaps you would like Sen. Obama to build consensus with the Republicans on Unified Field Theory? Or maybe form a bi-lateral committee to definitively establish or disprove the existence of God?

It's as if Carl "Repeat a Lie Enough Times" Rove himself had written Lieberman's speech.

More evidence that if John McCain is elected president, America will be subjected to at least four more years of flat-out lies.

And, it's apparently evidence that Joe Lieberman has lost not only his spine, but his mind. I would say "Say it ain't so, Joe"... but I doubt he could respond coherently.