Google makes everybody smart

So far the Internet has been no friend of the criminally inept, holding them up to much ridicule by highlighting their punchless exploits on its many file sharing websites. But, despite this entertaining aside, the Internet could ultimately prove to be a bonanza for stupid criminals everywhere.

We see evidence of a shifting paradigm in Colorado Springs CO, were two burglars were able to use door keys and pass codes to break into an indoor amusement center, but didn't consider the money might be locked in a safe

After foolishly spraying the security cameras with WD-40 -- which just cleansed the murky lenses -- the two hopelessly fought with the safe for 75 minutes, not even knowing what direction to turn the dials.

Then one of the thieves noticed a computer, got on the Internet, and Googled "how to crack a safe." A few minutes later they made off with 12,000 dollars.

And, in a disturbing indication of the evolution of the slow-witted criminal mind, the men also stole the computer.

Google loses Viacom, me

Google had hopes that being the enormous, innovative new kid on the block would encourage the established media entities to submit to mutually beneficial friendships. If Viacom's one billion dollar lawsuit against Google subsidiary Youtube is any indication, Google might have to earn its friends the hard expensive way.

There was one, albeit small, media company Google had hook, line and sinker without speaking to a lawyer or spending a dime: Me.

My love affair with Google started about three weeks ago when I noticed The JSB's daily traffic had almost doubled. While I would like to think this was because of fascinating writing and word of mouth, when I looked into it I discovered I was getting an unusually large amount of traffic from search engines -- particularly Google.

For example, according to Google, I was suddenly the number one website in the whole entire universe for those looking for information on "Kenny Loggins plastic surgery." As I was for "Beyonce Knowles dies."

I was getting all sorts of new Google inquires in that off-beat vein. I just remember those two because they were so odd -- considering I never posted specifically on either subject -- and, in the case of Beyonce, thoroughly incorrect.

Google also cast me as the world-wide authority on any variation upon "how to smuggle marijuana onto an airplane." This was clearly triggered by a couple of posts I did on Quarterback Michael Vick's dimwitted attempt to do just that.

I know Google is always fiddling with its search algorithms, and I have noticed peeks and valleys in search engine traffic in the past. But this sudden page rank ascension shattered its way out of the normal ebb-and-flow. It was a delightful, ego-boosting mystery.

Then, last Thursday, it disappeared as quickly as it came. I'm no longer on the first page of "Kenny Loggins plastic surgery," and nowhere at all on "Beyonce Knowles dies."

As a result, my traffic dipped precipitously, and I have became depressed about what was not so long ago a comfortable reality.

So how about that Google? Figure out ways to usurp all the media content ever created and then sell ads on the side of the screen . . . what a business plan! Who came up with it? Tony Soprano?

Google writes posts too

I just noticed when you search through Google's toolbar -- as opposed to its main website -- it gives you suggestions based not only on your own previous searches, but also the searches of other Google users.

I figured this out earlier today when I used the toolbar to confirm my spelling of "Ken Mehlman." Once I typed his name it immediately suggested a bunch of searches that get to Mehlman being Jewish and gay (ie Ken Mehlman gay, Ken Mehlman Jewish.)

This baffled me because my knowledge of Mehlman's Judaism and homosexuality way precedes my current computer -- so those couldn't be my searches. It was then I realized the toolbar was giving me the collective search wisdom of the whole entire Google universe.

So I ran a bunch of more famous political figures, as well as a few of the interweb's most searched names, through the toolbar. Here are the results:

George Bush: Quotes, jokes, biography, pictures, senior, cartoon, cocaine.

Bill Clinton: Biography, library, pictures, quotes, impeachment, foundation, speeches, grammy, social security.

Hillary Clinton: Collapses, faints, abortion, biography, 2008, for president.

John Kerry: Daughters, biography, jokes, as super chicken virus, sucks, pictures, wife.

John McCain: Biography, 2008, age, POW, for president, born, pledge of allegiance, senator

Lindsay Lohan: Lyrics, pictures, wallpaper, gallery, bikini, photo, speaks.*

Paris Hilton: Video, address book, hack, cellphone, sidekick.

Scarlett Johanasson: Pictures, wallpaper, Esquire, bio, Jewish, height.**

Another good way to waste time is a first name war. For example, if you type "Bill" you surprisingly get Cosby and Gates before Clinton. And Hillary loses to Swank and Duff. While Lohan is second Lindsay to no one.

But it's not just the Clintons who get the shaft. Both Bushs lose George to Washington. Even when you type "George W."

George Washington might be father of our nation but, unless everyone is using "President Bush" to search, Washington's Google predominance makes me question if the toolbar's suggestions are weighted purely in terms of popularity, as I had assumed. Still, it's good times on a Friday afternoon.

* I know W. is the president and all, but the fact he gets cocaine and Lohan doesn't really makes me think the results aren't properly weighted. In fact, it calls into question the integrity of every search I've ever done on Google.

** Height appears early and often in most actor searches.

The one when I discover jsb is already Web 2.0

Over the past year nothing has caused me more stress than the term "Web 2.0." I've had absolutely no idea what it meant, but I was pretty sure I needed it.

Could I download it? Would it crash my computer? Was it free?

After not finding answers to these questions the first few times I come across the phrase, I attempted to purge myself of its very existence by hitting the X or back button whenever I was confronted with the suddenly ubiquitous buzz word.

My thought being I might as well not dwell on what I was missing out on. Anyway, wouldn't Web 3.0 or 2.1 be available soon? I would get on top of it then.

Actually, that's not true. I was really hoping if I avoided the whole thing completely it would magically go away and I could keep my good old Web 1.0 forever. I'm pretty sure Dennis Hasert felt the same way about his image of a congress without page diddling whenever he heard ominous talk of Mark Foley and instant messages.

Today, as I read about Google's purchase of Youtube, I came across mention of Web 2.0. Since I was really interested in learning more about the deal I didn't immediately flee. The more I read the more Web 2.0 kept popping up -- usually in reference to Youtube.

So I bit the bullet and wikipediaed Web 2.0.

Surprisingly, I wasn't subjected to a list of new-fangled Internet functions I'd never even dreamt of. Instead, once I cut through the unnecessarily techie jargon, I learned that while an uniform definition of Web 2.0 doesn't exist, it basically means an Internet made up of platforms that allow for collaboration and easily changeable content.

Wikepedia would be an example of Web 2.0. So would Craigslist or Ebay or this blog.

Web 2.0 is just a name for the next step in the Internet's natural evaluation. It's like if they started calling me Jeremy 2.0 after I learned to walk. That's all.

I have to say, a lot folks have puffed up Web 2.0 -- deliberately or inadvertently -- and made it sound more intimidating and exclusive than it really is.

I'm sure they'll do the same for Web 3.0 -- which is rumored to have something to do with the code that unifies all of internet communication. This time I'll be ready.

Death watch (no internet in Venezuela edition)

Noam Chomsky -- not dead. JSB urges Americans to use Google before they declare a living person deceased and "make themselves look stupid."

I hope this still works (via CD)

Go to Google and type "French military victories." Then hit the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button.

Google as an all-seeing force in the universe

Yahoo! is the internet's most trafficked site. Yet, it continues to lag far behind Google in the all-important "search engine" market, despite this built-in advantage. Yahoo's inability to make up ground on Google's search engine market share was big part of Yahoo's stunning 22 percent decline in stock price last Wednesday.

Yahoo's search engine woes have also resulted in a little soul-searching of my own.

Why is it that I go to Yahoo! for most of my email, a good chunk of my news and all of my fantasy sports (a topic I have been banned from discussing on this space,) but still hop right over to Google any time I want to find information on say ... Yahoo's bad stock day last week?

To answer that questions I was forced to examine the tenets of my faith.

I've never been much of believer. The idea that some being, no matter how divine, could keep track of the comings and goings of up to 5 billion people never gelled with my better sense. Whenever someone told me it was possible, I'd think them a bit of a fool.

That was until the first time I used a search engine. What I was searching for, I have no idea, but it was late enough in the search engine game that about 50 million hits came up in about .26 seconds.

If this machine, made by mortal man, could do so many relevant computations in so little time, suddenly the idea an of all-seeing divine force that lived up in the sky wasn't so silly.

This possibility made me feel warm and good. Since I had done my first search on Google, that search engine acquired a certain providence, in my mind.

It helped the word "Google" sounds to me like a combination of heavenly and earthly infinitude.

"Yahoo!" sounds like a good place to check your email and play fantasy sports.

What kind of soccer player is Jeremy Keif?

Over the last 24 hours, four different search engine inquiries involving a soccer player named "Jeremy Keif" (who may or may not perform "tricks") have directed the inquirer to this blog. The searches have come from such diverse location as South Dakota and England.

My attempts to gather information on Jeremy Keif have so far been thwarted. Every time I try, I also find this blog is the most promising source for information on Jeremy Keif, the trickster soccer player. Of course this blog knows nothing of Jeremy Keif, or what kind of soccer tricks he might perform.

I keep trying, but it is a never-ending circle.

I realize this post will just encourage more Jeremy Keif inquires be directed towards jsb. Assuming there is a Jeremy Keif, who plays soccer and might do tricks, and this is not just some kind of one-in-a-trillion cosmic coincidence.

But it will also increase the likelihood that someone who reads this is able to tell me who this Jeremy Keif is and what kind of soccer-related tricks he performs. If he does perform tricks.

I'm on my like second lemonade

The Google founders' private jet, currently involved in some weird but apparently newsworthy lawsuit, is being referred to in the press and on the net as the "Party Plane."

Why?

Because the crazy kids spiced things up by asking the jet's interior designer to string a hammock, and one of them wanted a California king-sized bed -- a request that caused a rift between the two founders, who generally like to project an image of modesty.

Now that's rock 'n roll.

Anyway, since when does a hammock and a bed have anything to do with a party? (Clean your minds.)

It sounds to me like they are sleepy.

World domination must be fatiguing -- or surprisingly boring.