1st edition

Many social networking sites ask you to describe yourself in a brief ‘about me’ section on your profile page. The varieties of formats in which people post this information are truly diverse. Some scribble precise details about their current life while others take up more space to attempt a description of their personalities. Some like to keep it short and simple while others use poetry and quotes as tools to make themselves look more complicated and deep.

Most friends now visit each other’s profiles more often than they visit each other. Others stay in touch solely through the Internet. A profile page can have a great impact on how people perceive you. In fact, it can have a great impact on how you perceive yourself. Sci-fi junkies often predict that future technology will let us choose who we want to be. In a way, those predictions might be coming true. We might be close to the day when the central point of a person’s consciousness is found near the photo frame of their Facebook profile.

People comb through their own profiles very often. As such, a girl who plays cynical in her own ‘about me’ section might end up believing that cynicism is actually part of her personality. Also, for the sake of coherence, she may incorporate those traits into real life. Whether or not this effort is conscious at first, it may eventually become part of how she identifies herself. In the complex maze of perception and self-identity, some people might learn to view their profiles as mere non-physical extensions of the self.

‘About me’ is all that many people know of you and they’re reminded every time they visit your profile. Shouldn’t the composition of such information require some amount of self-reflection? Yet, it seems that some people are content with swiftly painting a picture that satisfies some part of their ego. Some are clearly making a play while others seem too sure of themselves. Some are lacking and make you wonder while others go on and on.

No matter how outlandish your profile maybe, it describes some part of your persona. In an ideal world, your friends would know you well enough to look at your profile from the point of reference of your personality. But the opposite maybe true and they may find themselves viewing the real you from the perspective they’ve gained from your profile. It’s hard to tell.

So if you were to describe yourself in a few lines for the world to read, how would you go about it? What part of you would you include and what would you consider not important enough to be worthy of the headlines?

Since everyone gets an empty canvas to start with, a mutual understanding seems to exist subconsciously which guarantees that people take the information that you provide them at face value. Questioning the accuracy of someone’s profile could mean risking the perceived integrity of your own.

Your visitors are a diverse mix, especially if you have an open profile. Some (the most pleasant kind in my opinion) are just trying to keep in touch. Others (friends and stalkers) are browsing to see how you’re doing. Still others (employers and secret crushes) might be sizing you up. As such, presentation can be as important as dressing up for that all-important interview or first date while too much information can buy you some quality hassle. For whom do you tailor the ‘About me’?

GENEVE (1ED) – At 0600 hrs yesterday, scientists at the Large Hadron Collider announced that their worst fears were  realized when the collission of sub-atomic particles just shy of the speed of light resulted in the creation of several blackholes at different scales. Following a plea by scientists, major news corporations and newspapers have decided to not publish the news so as to not create havoc amongst the concerned masses.

“We do not know how many black holes have formed,” says a scientist at the LHC on the condition of anonymity, “but we believe there to be more than one”. Top sources at the LHC claim that the scale of the black holes poses no credible threat. But as the energy of the colliding particles increases, the size of the possible black holes will increase exponentially, threatening the safety of the entire world.

The chances of this happening were reported to be one in 5 million before the experiments began. But the odds had been going up ever since the Collidor began operation. “We realized early on that our calculations on how the apparatus should behave were off,” says the scientist, “and we had to revise the estimates almost every hour due to the unpredictable manner in which the LHC was operating”. When asked why the potentially dangerous experiment was allowed to continue, a spokesman for the LHC said that the huge sum of money invested into the idea could not be forsaken “at the slightest dab of concern”.

Conception and construction of the LHC cost approximately £3.5 billion over nearly a decade. Scientists are hoping to find the ellusive Higgs Boson particle by colliding sub-atomic particles at very high speeds. The Higgs Boson is the particle which physicists believe to be responsible for the mass of things. It has never been observed although the framework of modern physics rests upon its shoulders. Conditions were set-up at the LHC that replicate the state of the universe when the big-bang had just occured. The LHC was cooled down for weeks to transform it into one of the coldest places in the universe and subatomic particles raced along its 27 km circumference, accelerating towards the speed of light.

“When the experiment first began,” says the scientist, “the odds of finding the Higgs Boson were considerably higher than those of creating a black hole. But the revised odds after only a day of operation made the creation of black holes more likely. Many mathematicians expressed their concern and wanted the LHC to be shut down until the calculations were reviewed”. Despite the concern, the LHC was allowed to operate further due to two major reasons.

“If we were to stop operations, the hysteria would make it unlikely for the LHC to resume atleast in the near future. Also, there was no contingency plan to halt the operations. Thats the one thing that we didn’t plan”.

Frankie Boyle, a regular contributor to BBC’s Channel 2 recently said, “These black holes are the worst possible kind of black holes. Everybody is going to slowly move towards Switzerland”. To make his point in a debate about the importance of new discoveries promised by the LHC, Mr. Boyle said, “I’m sure they’ll find some interesting things about protons. But I may add, I don’t give a shit”.

Our newsteam has promised to pass on any comments to our scientist at the Large Hadron Collider.  Please keep your messages short. Also, this is (obvious) satire against the prepostorous “end of the world” drama. Stop if you’re sweating and hope you enjoyed the read.

Has your Firefox lost its fiery wonder? Maybe you have yet to say goodbye to Internet Explorer? Opera isn’t music to your ears and you never liked Apple much to go on its Safari? Well, now Google wants to have a shot and fill your world with Chrome.

“Yes, its a Trojan,” says Stephen Moseley, senior web designer and former aerospace engineer at NASA. “Google are trying to get Google Gears into more homes and on more desktops. Chrome is a Google OS that will allow you to run some web-applications. All the tabs are sandboxed, so Chrome behaves more like an OS. If an app collapses, the whole browser will not fail. Say hello to a Cloud-OS.”

A chrome in every home.

This seems to be a fluent explanation as to why Google have decided to enter the browser wars. But many people have differing theories. “Google introduced Chrome for reasons similar to Apple’s introduction of Safari,” says Emery Jeffreys, Internet wizard at Bright House Networks. “Google Android phones will require a browser.”

I don’t doubt that Chrome will be the browser of choice for the Android, but I’m not sure if this is the primary motive behind the conception of Chrome. Surely, it’d easier for Google to build a mobile-only version of the browser.

“Why let MS or even Mozilla stand between you and your customer?” asks Cole Parker, Director of Product Development at Building Engines. “Ultimately Google needs to push the envelope of what can be done on the web. It isn’t enough to let JavaScript, Flash and HTML define what can be done. If they can get the Chrome on everyone’s computer, they can push better applications to it.”