90353 items (3212 unread) in 29 feeds
Director
(6 unread)
Technology
(1261 unread)
Music Technology
(337 unread)
Fun
(523 unread)
Music
(105 unread)
DIY Electronics
(980 unread)
1982: At precisely 11:44 a.m., Scott Fahlman posts the following electronic message to a computer-science department bulletin board at Carnegie Mellon University:
19-Sep-82 11:44 Scott E Fahlman :-)
From: Scott E Fahlman
I propose that the following character sequence for joke markers:
:-)
Read it sideways. Actually, it is probably more economical to mark things that are NOT jokes, given current trends. For this, use:
:-(
With that post, Fahlman became the acknowledged originator of the ASCII-based emoticon. From those two simple emoticons (a portmanteau combining the words emotion and icon) have sprung dozens of others that are the joy, or bane, of e-mail, text-message and instant-message correspondence the world over.
Fahlman was not, however, the first person to use typographical symbols to convey emotions. The practice goes back at least to the mid-19th century, when Morse code symbols were occasionally used for the same purpose. Other examples exist as well.
In 1881, the American satirical magazine Puck published what we would now call emoticons, using hand-set type. No less a wordsmith than Ambrose Bierce suggested using what he called a "snigger point" -- \__/ -- to convey jocularity or irony.
But the modern emoticon does trace its lineage directly to Fahlman, who says he came up with the idea after reading "lengthy diatribes" from people on the message board who failed to get the joke or the sarcasm in a particular post -- which is probably what "given current trends" refers to in his own, now-famous missive.
To remedy this, Fahlman suggested using :-) and :-( to distinguish between posts that should be taken humorously and those of a more serious nature.
Fahlman's original post was lost for a couple of decades and believed gone for good, until it was retrieved from an old backup tape, thus cementing his claim of priority.
Source: Various
With three simple keystrokes, Scott Fahlman brought a smile to the internet.
In a 1982 message board post, Fahlman, a computer scientist at Carnegie-Mellon University, proposed using typographical smiley faces to mark jokes and clear up confusion about writers' intentions. With his simple proposal, the emoticon was born.
Fahlman's smiling shorthand (and its frown-face equivalent) started a wave of internet expression that's spilled over into the real world. The emoticon has been upgraded and animated, loved and hated. Emoticons have graced gadgets, T-shirts and more.
Witness the emoticon's lasting impact, and smile if you can.
Left:
Father of the emoticon Scott Fahlman shows off his happy handiwork. His proposal to use smiley and frowney faces is credited with launching the emoticon in the internet age. Now, Carnegie-Mellon hands out an annual Smiley Award for "innovation in technology assisted person-to-person communication."
Emotibles' Emotibuds slip onto classic iPod earbuds, giving Apple's bland white gear a colorful geek upgrade. The company also makes "strangely expressive" emoticon stickers, pins and more.
:
Wear a freaky-looking Mask of Emotion and you'll really light up a room. The bubble-shape mask, developed by designers at Hongik University in Korea, uses LEDs to put emoticon expressions on its wearer's "face."
An unknown visionary (or maybe a time traveler) used typographical symbols to mimic human expressions in an 1881 edition of Puck magazine.
:
Did the person or persons who installed the locks and handle on this door realize the statement they were making? London graphic designer Peter Gibbons spotted the happy hardware on a door in Copenhagen.
Old-school methods for inter-vehicular communication -- flipping the bird at the tailgating bastard behind you or mumbling "sorry" to yourself after cutting somebody off -- aren't exactly effective.
Cruise into the 21st century with the Driving LED Emoticon, which lets you express your true feelings in a straightforward fashion. Just mount the LED message sign in your rear window, then use the remote control to transmit one of five messages (smiling face, winking face, "Thanks," "Back Off" and "Sorry") to the driver on your bumper.
Feeling a little remote from your loved one? Drop a clue about your current mood with the Web Are You? networked emoticon device from Mauricio Melo Design. Connect the thing to the internet, then ping it via a web page or cellphone. One of the four emoticons will light up to give your significant other a visual representation of your state of mind.
Wear your emotion on your lapel (or anywhere else) with one of these colorful emoticon pins. The set includes "Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)," "Mad," "Smilie," "Cool," "Frown," "Wink," "Big Grin" and "Eek."
Emoticons aren't just for the internet. With the Emoticon Transforming Stamp, you can ink a piece of paper with a standard smiley in nothing flat. The $6 silicone stamp is flexible -- squish it for variations on the theme.
Screw e-mail -- use an actual mailbox to send a message with these emoticon letterpress cards from Lizard Press.
Endless mutations on the smiley face, as popularized by AOL Instant Messenger and other services that use animated emoticons, show up all over the place. Smiley World, which registered the '60s-era smiley face as a trademark in 1971, sells customizable T-shirts that will look familiar to anybody who's ever used AIM.
One beautiful thing about emoticons: The keystroke expressions can be put to virtually limitless creative uses. These boobtastic potholders by CrochetandCrafts owe a clear debt of gratitude to Fahlman's very first smiley.
Airport security found a jar of pasta sauce in my luggage last month. It was a 6-ounce jar, above the limit; the official confiscated it, because allowing it on the airplane with me would have been too dangerous. And to demonstrate how dangerous he really thought that jar was, he blithely tossed it in a nearby bin of similar liquid bottles and sent me on my way.
There are two classes of contraband at airport security checkpoints: the class that will get you in trouble if you try to bring it on an airplane, and the class that will cheerily be taken away from you if you try to bring it on an airplane. This difference is important: Making security screeners confiscate anything from that second class is a waste of time. All it does is harm innocents; it doesn't stop terrorists at all.
Let me explain. If you're caught at airport security with a bomb or a gun, the screeners aren't just going to take it away from you. They're going to call the police, and you're going to be stuck for a few hours answering a lot of awkward questions. You may be arrested, and you'll almost certainly miss your flight. At best, you're going to have a very unpleasant day.
This is why articles about how screeners don't catch every -- or even a majority -- of guns and bombs that go through the checkpoints don't bother me. The screeners don't have to be perfect; they just have to be good enough. No terrorist is going to base his plot on getting a gun through airport security if there's decent chance of getting caught, because the consequences of getting caught are too great.
Contrast that with a terrorist plot that requires a 12-ounce bottle of liquid. There's no evidence that the London liquid bombers actually had a workable plot, but assume for the moment they did. If some copycat terrorists try to bring their liquid bomb through airport security and the screeners catch them -- like they caught me with my bottle of pasta sauce -- the terrorists can simply try again. They can try again and again. They can keep trying until they succeed. Because there are no consequences to trying and failing, the screeners have to be 100 percent effective. Even if they slip up one in a hundred times, the plot can succeed.
The same is true for knitting needles, pocketknives, scissors, corkscrews, cigarette lighters and whatever else the airport screeners are confiscating this week. If there's no consequence to getting caught with it, then confiscating it only hurts innocent people. At best, it mildly annoys the terrorists.
To fix this, airport security has to make a choice. If something is dangerous, treat it as dangerous and treat anyone who tries to bring it on as potentially dangerous. If it's not dangerous, then stop trying to keep it off airplanes. Trying to have it both ways just distracts the screeners from actually making us safer.
---
Bruce Schneier is chief security technology officer of BT. His new book is Schneier on Security.