This is creepy, but you're creepier

Creepy.

One day, people won’t have to type queries into a box to search for information. It’ll be delivered to them, via their various screens, based on where they are, who is nearby and what they might like and need to know.

Google gave a glimpse of that future this week at its developer conference in a feature called Google Now, which will act as a kind of automated personal assistant on Android smartphones. The service, which will roll out as part of the next update to Google’s mobile operating system, will do things like remind an Android owner of a lunch date — but also who it is with, how to get there and when to leave, based on current traffic congestion. And based on your past Google searches, it will keep you up to date on flight information and sports scores. 

It’s easy to see how this kind of service could be helpful. It’s also really easy to see how it could be creepy. What’s harder, however, is to see the line between the two, and to know where (and when) Google might cross it.

The features that Google Now offers are mostly already available in some form or another, through third-party mobile apps and services.

But it gets weird when Google starts to extend its reach into that territory, because Google already knows so much about us — things like who we e-mail and talk to the most, along with what we search for. When those smaller bits of data begin to get linked together in a more meaningful way, that knowledge can take on a larger, different context. 

A standalone app that pings you to let you know when friends are nearby might feel like a friendly little helper. Google doing it might feel like a menacing stalker. In addition, a service like Google Now may also cause people to realize exactly how much data and information Google actually has about their routines and daily lives. And that might cause some people to be very, very uncomfortable, regardless of how useful the service is.

I'll tell you what's creepy: this guy who follows me around telling me when my next appointment is. I think it's my dentist.

(Thanks, Bruce)

I got a charge out of this

Charging iPads.

The annual cost of charging your iPad tablet -- based on fully charging it every other day -- is $1.36, according to a study by the Electric Power Research Institute,

"The analysis shows that each model of the iPad consumes less than 12 kWh of electricity over the course of a year, based on a full charge every other day," EPRI said. "By comparison, a plasma 42" television consumes 358 kWh of electricity a year.

Apple said 67 million of the devices have been purchased worldwide, the power institute said. EPRI calculations found that the average energy used by all iPads in the market is approximately 590 gigawatt hours.

"In a scenario where the number of iPads tripled over the next two years, the energy required would be nearly equivalent to two 250-megawatt (MW) power plants operating at a 50 percent utilization rate. A quadrupling of sales in two years would require energy generated by three 250-MW power plants," the power institute said.

"These results raise important questions about how the shifting reliance from desktop to laptop to mobile devices will change energy use and electricity requirements for the information age," EPRI Vice President Mark McGranaghan said. "At less than a penny per charge these findings bring new meaning to the adage, 'A penny for your thoughts.' "

I'm guessing that some intern in the public relations office came up with that and is real proud of himself.

Something new to worry about online

Be careful what you click on when searching the Web; the international cybercrime community is coming for you.

That's the message from Internet security firm Blue Coat, which earlier this year found that poisoned search engine results remain the number one malware threat on the Web, accounting for a full 40 percent of all cyberattacks in 2011.

The popular bait-and-switch tactic is nearly four times more likely to snag unsuspecting users than the once common email-based approach, which now only accounts for 11 percent of attacks. Social networking rounds out the top three threats with 6.5 percent. The Blue Coat report was based on an analysis of the Web traffic of more than 75 million users. 

"Searching is at least as dangerous as going into your email in-box and clicking on things," Chris Larsen, Blue Coat's chief malware expert, recently told USA Today.

The scam works like this:

The bad guys set up themed "bait sites" using terms that are likely to show up in search engine results, as a way to trick users into visiting their sites. When the unsuspecting user clicks on a poisoned result in their search engine, thinking they are going to a legitimate site related to their search, they are served a site designed by the phishers to gather their financial information or get them to download a piece of malware or otherwise fall victim to whatever scam they are running. In many cases, users don't even know they have been victimized until it's too late.

What you can do.

• Scan the site description — Google and Bing display two lines of "flavor text" alongside their text search results, which can provide clues to the site's provenance. "Look for disjointed, random text, like it was mashed up by a computer (because it was)."
• Check out the domain name — "Is it one you've heard of? Does it seem to have something to do with the topic you were searching for?"
• Preview before clicking — "Google now has a 'preview' feature, where text-search results have a little button to the right. If you hover your mouse on it, it will display an image of the page. This lets you see if the page 'looks legit.'"
• Know your top level domains (TLDs) — "There are a lot of two-letter TLDs assigned to specific countries: .RU = Russia, .IN = India, etc. If you're searching for a U.S. culture topic, like Halloween costume ideas, or Thanksgiving recipes, or Christmas decorations and your search returns results on .RU or .IN, etc, ask yourself if it's likely that a site hosted there would really have good content about your search topic."
• Use protection — It's always important to protect your computer with antivirus and antimalware software, which will block many of the malicious infrastructures that run search engine poisoning attacks.

Learn more.

Let's talk. Not.

People just aren't talking anymore. I let Google pick up my voice mail, and it tries to transcribe it, with about a 50 percent success rate. That's enough to let me know what's up. So I have fewer buttons to push -- and fewer people to talk to.

People are switching from voicing to texting in such numbers that wireless carriers are considering switching to unlimited plans to keep revenue up. 

They have reason to worry: the average length of a local call has fallen more than 50% over the last decade to around 1.8 minutes, according CTIA, The Wireless Association. The only time certain people bring the phone to their ear may be to avoid talking to those around them, studies show. Some 13% of people in a Pew Research Center survey said they actually pretend to be on their phones in order to avoid “unwanted personal interactions.” 

Instead, adults have joined the ranks of teenagers and now let their thumbs do the talking. 

One-in-three Americans said they’d rather text than call, according to a 2011 study by Pew Research Center. In fact, the survey found that Americans send an average of 41 texts a day – with those aged 19-25 sending an average of 110 texts a day. Wolfgang Luckmann, a Yulee, Fla.-based acupuncturist, treats patients with “thenar tendinitis,” an inflammation of tissues in the thumb mainly due to incessant texting: “In the old days, people had neck spasms from talking on the phone. Now, they’re getting this.”

People used to deliver good news by phone. These days, they’re just as likely to brag about their kids in a Facebook status update. Why? It reaches more people and it’s less time-consuming. 

Mostly, however, why should you want to listen to them pretend to care?

Look under the cushion