Man, who’d have thought that getting real time updates on what all your worthless, average idiot friends had for dinner, or seeing pictures of what other bourgeois morons they were hanging out with last weekend would be worth so much fucking money?

Facebook is getting a $200 million investment from a Russian Internet investor that values the social networking company at $10 billion even though it has yet to turn a profit.
The investment gives Digital Sky Technologies a nearly 2 percent stake in Palo Alto, Calif.-based Facebook’s preferred stock. Digital Sky won’t get a board seat.
The $10 billion valuation for Facebook is less than the $15 billion value implied in 2007, when Microsoft spent $240 million for a 1.6 percent stake in the company — even though Facebook has substantially grown since then. However Facebook’s own appraisal after the Microsoft deal gave the company a market value of about $3.7 billion, according to details revealed in a legal settlement.

And the Facebook hyperbole doesn’t in there. An AP story over the weekend ran with the somewhat mystifying title “Google increasingly battles Facebook in search.” The story of course went on to talk about basically every other shitty social media or user-review site, only briefly mentioning Facebook, leaving one with a nose for linguistics to wonder, is Facebook becoming the Kleenex, or Band Aid of Web 2.0 social networking, the blanket namebrand which represents a whole class of products? Or are journalists and other pseudo-intellectuals so currently enamored with the social media fad that they’re eating their own balls just to see who can over-inflate the importance of “USER GENERATED CONTENT” the most???

YOU MAKE THE CALL! LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BRO, WIKI THAT SHIT!!11 Web 3.0 YOU’RE THE BOSS, DUDE, HIVEMIND. MEMETICS IS THE NEW MARKETING

Okay, whoever’s reading this who hates mosquitoes, please raise your hand. Let me get a count here…alright, even though very few of you actually just raised your hands, I can guarantee that no matter how much you ascribe to the live-and-let-live philosophy, when it comes to the mosquito debate you’re all on my side (and if you actually raised your hand just now I love you and want to marry you. No dudes, no pets thx.)

With Synthesis Blog’s obvious entomological knowledge (type “mosquito eater” into google. SEE!?), it’s due time that we weighed in on the mosquito magnet, who happen to be sponsoring this blog page today. While I think that it is unlikely that mosquitoes carry the dreaded and much hyped SWINE FLU, they do sometimes carry a nasty little cocktail of other deadly bacteria and viruses like West Nile, Malaria, Amorphous Blob Disease and more. Plus, who likes to itch? (Again, show of hands….alright, just forget it.)

If you’re at all like me and enjoy the warm months outdoors at BBQs and other similar summertime gatherings, and you tend to forget to bring bug repellent, perhaps you should look into this mosquito magnet.

A tank of propane, a shaded area and about six weeks and your mosquito problems will be a thing of the past. Apparently, judging by consumer testimonials, the thing works. This dude’s video shows a tank of dead bugs….pretty gnarly.

Are you doing your part to rid the world of mosquitoes?

Interesting piece on Slate today about YouTube, the supposed grand-champion of user-generated content, which is of course the basis of the Web 2.0 revolution. According to analysts best guesses, the site loses around half-a-billion dollars a year:

YouTube’s troubles are surprisingly similar to those faced by newspapers. Just like your local daily, the company is struggling to sell enough in advertising to cover the enormous costs of storing and distributing its content. Newspapers have to pay to publish and deliver dead trees; YouTube has to pay for a gargantuan Internet connection to send videos to your computer and the millions of others who are demanding the most recent Dramatic Chipmunk mash-up. Google doesn’t break out YouTube’s profits and losses on its earnings statements, and of course it’s possible that Credit Suisse’s estimates are off. But if the analysts are at all close, YouTube, which Google bought in 2006, is in big trouble. As Benjamin Wayne, the CEO of the rival video-streaming company Fliqz, pointed out in a recent article for Silicon Alley Insider, not even Google can long sustain a company that’s losing close to half a billion dollars a year.

Of course, the implication of YouTube titanic failure to capitalize on it’s massive traffic have repercussions for the rest of the new Web 2.0 superstars, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, et al, who have yet to figure out how to make money beyond having people give it to them to own a piece:

YouTube’s problems point to a larger difficulty for many Web startups: “User-generated content” is proving to be a financial albatross. Two years ago, Time magazine named “you” its Person of the Year for doing your small part in fueling the Web 2.0 revolution. The magazine argued that by collecting and distributing the creations of millions of individuals, the Web is upending the way we learn about what’s going on in the world around us. There’s no doubt this is true; you experienced the presidential inauguration through millions of pictures captured by ordinary people, and a lot of what you learn these days comes from articles put together by the anonymous hordes who power Wikipedia. Yet even though they’ve changed the way we live, sites that collect and share content produced by all of us haven’t done the one thing many tech evangelists said they’d do—make a ton of money. Or, in many cases, any money.

Google Trends managed to again spark up a great deal of humor in my life today as I traced back the current #17 trend, the Parents’ Television Council, back to their roots. The group is apparently is pissed off at Family Guy for such minor issues as showing a menially handicapped horse killing deaf kids, said horse licking Peter’s ass in his sleep and depicting Stewie knowingly eating horse sperm in his cereal… no big deal, right?!

Besides being mad at a show that clearly has a track record (not to mention the viewer disclaimers) that would give any responsible parent enough forewarning to restrict their child’s television access for this particular program, the council is pretty much mad at all of t.v. On their website, they publish a beautiful guide that illustrates what shows are appropriate for their children, which is perfect when you want to feel like a great parent without relying on your own common sense and judgment. They’re currently taking signatures to overturn court rulings like the currently defunct CA Violent Video Games Act, which in a nut shell is scaring them because they fear that kids playing Duck Hunt is going to lead to the next Columbine.

I would suggest you poke around their website, liked HERE, for a quick reminder that some parents like to keep their children on a tight leash by following advice that an overbearing source tells them rather than sitting down with their kids, answering questions they have about some of the material they feel too racy and explain to them why they can’t watch a particular show. Remember: convincing yourself you’re doing the best job possible raising your kids is all that matters. For members of the Parents Television Council to reply back to me, which I would greatly appreciate, please click HERE. Thanks for your understanding.

Google’s Top Trends is pretty much a great way to figure out what the crazy people in our society are searching… mostly, it’s them looking for other crazies. As I brushed past the political banter at the top of the charts this morning, I picked up on a really odd search term: “The Woman Who Married the Eiffel Tower”. Apparently there’s about 40 people in the world that are both psychologically and physiologically attracted to objects. Yes, that means sexually too
.

Erika is one of a handful of people around the world called “objectum sexuals” - people who fall in love with inanimate objects. Profiled in a documentary entitled “The Woman Who Married the Eiffel Tower,” she is shown hugging her “husband” and professing love for him, or it.

An ex U.S. Army soldier, she was reportedly sexually abused while growing up and was diagnosed with a chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. Upon “marrying” the iconic structure, Erika actually changed her surname to LaTour Eiffel. In the documentary, she discusses her relationship with the Parisian landmark, and claims to be very much in love.

Yet the Tower isn’t her first love. Previously she was in love with Lance, which was a bow, and during that relationship, she became a world champion in archery.

Pro tip: at about 9:30, we meet a woman that had a relationship with a guillotine, the Berlin wall and currently lives alone with 9 cats. Feel free to make your own judgments.

You know, all judgment aside, this is brilliant. I really don’t want to come off as a complete jerk, but it’s an effective way to keep people that have some obvious issues (which experts have to say is an intense reaction to stress) from making babies. They’re happy because they have their objects, and I’m stoked because I don’t have to see their kids running around making out with their Game Boys. It’s a win/win situation.

Watch Married To The Eiffel Tower [Part 1]  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Edit: I got to part 2… um… wow. This really started creeping me out. It’s kind of like the first time I saw Jesus Camp. A little less frightening, but still along the same lines. It’s almost disheartening to see this, considering there’s a definite void in the subjects, but at the same time they’re just beaming about their situations. More power to them, I guess.

Sorta…

Reports are coming in that Chris Brown might not even face charges on his violent attacks on Rihanna. This is a good amount of speculation, but comments have been made by the L.A. D.A. that back up the statements. Here’s the deal:

…during the argument, he started hitting her. According to the police report, she ordered him to drive her home and “faked a call” to someone, saying things like, “He’s dropping me off. Make sure the cops are there.”
Rihanna told cops the fake call enraged Brown. He said something to the effect of “You are really fucked up now. I’m going to kill you.”
At that point Brown allegedly began a violent attack with his fists.
We’re told the criminal threats charge is based on that one statement (threat) Brown allegedly made. As one law enforcement source told us, “It’s kinda weak, and the D.A. is not going to prosecute a high profile case like this unless it’s solid.” That’s why it was kicked back for further investigation.
Given the brutal nature of the attack a felony domestic battery charge is virtually a done deal. That, however, is a less serious offense than making criminal threats.

For the record, I know nothing about law, but I do have Google and the ctrl+V key combination, so here’s the scoop. Felony Domestic Battery can’t be charged here, because it only applies to a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former co-habitant, or the mother or father of his or her child. Rhianna and Brown were just together and making sweet, sweet love’n.

From Tyler Durden’s logic, we’re down to assault, which is about a 6 month sentence. That’s not considering the fact that he’s a first time offender, which is pretty impressive considering his chosen career. At this point, you could argue that Rihanna started the whole thing, which pretty much kills the case.

Who’s to blame here? Is it the media’s over-hyping the situation? Is it 19 year old Chris Brown, who allegedly hit and bit her? Is it Rihanna for being a trick ass ho? Hell, I don’t know. What’s your take on this whole thing? Feel free to visit my first post about this situation, which is gaining a good amount of attention.