Shout-out for a fellow artist: Craig Scott!

A fellow artist and old buddy of mine from way back just got his site up and running!  On it he's put up several galleries showcasing several of the different styles of art he's done in recent years.  Check him out!

Craig Michael Scott Art & Design

The Drunken Philosopher #8: Just think what we could do!

 A bit ago I saw this image posted by the All Science, All the Time FaceBook page, and it sparked a bit of a fire in me.  This picture spells out, in only a few words, a frustration I've had with human nature, and our seemingly inherent unwillingness to accept change and progress:

Srsly guys, stahp.

  Since this is something I actually do feel strongly about, expect a bit more seriousness than what you may be accustomed to from the Drunken Philosopher series of postings.

What's on my desk: 7/9/13

 In between layers of drying watercolor on the recently-posted Richter Mitchell and Phobos illustration, I've been starting on the sketchwork for the next piece, one of his younger brother and later main character, Justin Mitchell, with his Deity, Deimos.

Drinklage #2: Corpse Reviver #2

 So, after a long Saturday night of living it up, that Sunday feeling has come on over you and you feel like having one of those good-old "hair of the dog" cocktails to edge yourself off back into normality.  But that old mainstay of the Bloody Mary just loses its charm, and besides you want something a bit more refreshing, seeing as how we're in the middle of summer and all.  But don't fret!  I've got just the suggestion:  the aptly-named Corpse Reviver #2!

I Can Cooking! #2: Blackened Chicken Fettuccine Alfredo

 Fettuccine Alfredo.  It's one of those original comfort dishes, with its rich, creamy, peppery sauce atop those wide, tender noodles.  And then add some blackened chicken and sauteed vegetables, and well, you've got yourself a dish fit for a king!  In this edition, I'll be giving instructions for how to make this deliciously satisfying dish.

Song of the Week: 'MURRICA

It was the obvious choice to use the Star-Spangled Banner for the week that July 4th falls on, but here's an incredible version performed by Iced Earth which many out there may not have heard before (but should!).  They've managed to add that extra little bit of "HELL YEAH" factor into the song, while still staying true to the original composition (which so many renditions sadly fail to do).  The harmonizing of the guitars and the way the drumrolls are done toward the end are particularly awesome.  So anyway, without further ado:

The Drunken Philosopher #7: Ri-diddly-doo, just passin' on through...

Walking.  Through.  Walls.

Did I get your attention?  From olden tales and lore of phantoms to the current sci-fi and comics, the rate of occurrences of this phenomenon/ability without any real thought to the specifics of how exactly it would work is almost as amazing as the ability itself.  We know that about 99% of all matter, even of the solid sort, is just empty space, and it's the fields generated by the repulsion forces of those countless subatomic particles that make things seem "solid"... so if there was a way to turn those fields off or without collapsing our own atoms into neutron star matter, or simply align our subatomic particles just right either through magic, SCIENCE!, or some sort of Men Who Stare at Goats -level meditation technique, then that would be awesome... but then, how would we make sure that we'd only be intangible to the walls?

Drinklage #1: Let's talk about booze!

Today, I'll discuss another hobby of mine:  drinking.  Okay, that sounds bad.  More specifically, the mixology, discovery of new flavors, and the "wow" factor when you make something truly delicious.

(I've got a bit of a collection going, you see)

Unholy Paladin Studios Tutorials: How to build a picture with a light table

Huge drawing is huuuuuuge.

 So, you want to build up a very complex illustration, and you want to make sure that everything, both foreground and background, is absolutely perfect before committing them to the same piece of paper?  Or you're just not wanting to mess up one element of the picture while working on another?  Or perhaps, the final project is simply going to be on a larger piece of paper than what you're sketching on?

 Today, I'll be covering a technique using one of the most useful tools in a traditional artist's arsenal, the light table, in order to accomplish all the above.

Shout-Out: Creativerse!

Today I would like to give a shout-out for "Creativerse," a blog run by Daniel Wagner, a cousin of mine!

He's had it up and running since this February; though there's no one particular theme to the postings, but it's all really interesting stuff, ranging from video game nostalgia to social issues, to his opinions on various other things.  All of it is quite well-written and thought-provoking stuff.  Though there's not much up yet, just keep in mind that it's just the beginning of what promises to be a great blog!

Song of the Week! Origami, "Потерянный Рай," 23-29 Jun 2013

Bringing back this old feature!  So it's already Thursday night, but I've listened to it several times throughout the week so it still counts, yeah?

So anyways, here we have an acoustic version of a ballad from a metal band from Russia, who have a Japanese name. And you know what? It's a damn good song, even if you don't understand the words. And if you do? The feels, man.  And that breakdown that begins at around the 2:43 mark to 3:35?  Beautifully executed.


And of course, just to be completely fair to the song, here's the (even more amazing) studio version for compare:

I Can Cooking! Volume 1: The Deliciousness that is Calamari

Hello all!

This will kick off the first of one of the new features I discussed in my "blog revival" post; in which I discuss one of my other favorite pastimes:  cooking!

Now, This may of course prompt me to change the title of my blog (especially since, you know, it's going to be more of general stuff from my life than art from now on), but I'll worry about that once I figure out if I even can change the title, lol.  So anyway, let's begin, shall we?

SO!  Calamari time.

 Calamari is one of those dishes that can make or break a cook; it's simple enough that anyone could make it, but it's also quite easy to do wrong.  There are two precise points at which it reaches a perfect doneness, either very early into the cooking cycle, or fairly late into it when the meat begins to break down and soften again.  Ever been out to eat at a restaurant and been served a plate full of chewy, rubbery or leathery pieces of calamari that lacked any real flavor outside of the breading, and was more of a chore to get through than it was worth?  Yeah, me too.  I suspect that the majority of people who purport to hate calamari have only had the unfortunate experience of gnawing through a very poorly-cooked plate of the stuff.  It's supposed to be soft, buttery, with a slight chew; just slightly firmer than imitation crab.  And though the flavor is mild, it's definitely there:  rich, slightly savory, and just the slightest hint of sea but none of the funk we often associate with seafood.  So how do we accomplish THAT?

Ah, so this site still exists!

This is what happens when the e-mail account originally used to set up the blog no longer exists, and you don't bother fixing it for... 2 years?

Switched it over to this whole brand new G+ thing, will spend the next week or so doing "renovation work" (or would it more appropriately be "REMOVE-ation?"  ...Nobody?  Ah well.) to get it to a more usable shape, and will start using it for the stuff that's too lengthy to post on my FB, and too unrelated for my DA.  Of course there'll be my usual drawing stuff and pseudo-intellectual bullshit, but will also be joined with some cool stuff like food and drinks I make, and maybe some tourism stuff since I've finally got a decent camera.

Also going to figure out what to do with my Playlist doodad at the bottom.  It was cool 7 years ago when I set this thing up, but now even though I like it, I feel that having music autoplay any time someone comes by may only serve to drive off any prospective readers.  "What is this, MySpace?!" and all that.  Maybe after playing around with the sidebars (which have remained unchanged since I set this thing up), I'll just link it there, like "Hey, open this in a new tab for your listening enjoyment if you so choose; I shan't shove the music I like down all of your throats!"

Kind of looking forward to seeing what sort of layout and format capabilities have been added since the old days.  I barely touched the CSS for the page when I first set this thing up, was scared of ruining it all... hell, I think this is largely still one of the "format" layouts, just with a couple of minor tweaks here and there.  Going to have to dive into the new web design tools suite and see if I can't come up with something that's a bit more... ME.

ONWARD!

The Drunken Philosopher #6: Something about Doubles

A thought just occurred to me, which has given life to a new theory.
I was pondering the existence of Pangaea, the supercontinent of old which contained all of Earth's current landmass. I got to thinking, "how in the world does a planet of such size exist with such an uneven mass distribution?" Then I considered the (nigh indetectable) slowing of our planet's rotation, and the phenomenon of tectonic shift. I then came to one conclusion:
Perhaps this planet's entire surface used to be covered by water. Once, a couple billion or so years ago, the Earth was actually a binary planet system. Something happened which caused the orbit of the less fortunate (and undoubtedly smaller) of the aforementioned planets to decay, gradually being pulled inextricably into the larger planet's gravity well. As we know, as an orbiting object's path becomes gradually tighter, the rate of completing said orbit becomes faster and faster (in which case the distance travelled decreases at a higher rate than the speed of the object; otherwise it meets at the precise escape velocity for that distance out from the gravity well, stabilizing the orbital distance). The rotational speed of the planet may well have been augmented from having hit at such a speed, the moon creating a "spin" from which the Earth is just now recovering. The largest part of the mass of the smashed down into the crust is what became the first landmass to stick out of the water: Pangaea... while the debris from the impact flung out into orbit from the smaller planet being torn to bits pre-impact would have formed a ring which orbited the Earth until it coalesced to form a smaller version of what it once was, which we now know as the moon. The phenomenon of tectonic shift (the mechanism by which the continents are now shifting about) is just the planet's means of re-distributing this formerly uneven mass to something more uniform and spherical.
Now imagine, if you will, an Earth which was never hit by its smaller half. It would have been a planet with somewhat lower gravity, covered in water (or perhaps ice, as the volcanic activity responsible for the first "greenhouse" layer which caused the initial warming of the atmosphere was in turn the result of the tectonic movement caused by the aforementioned impact... but let's be optimistic here and assume that our planet would have borne the capacity to support life regardless). A huge moon looms in the sky, more than large enough to (frequently) block out the sun... while the idea of a full lunar eclipse is laughable. Running with the assumption of life existing on the planet, without land providing a wider variety of environments for life to adapt to, birds and most insects, probably mammals as well would never have reason to have existed. The most advanced of creatures are most likely to be apex predators such as sharks (or their equivalent), intelligent encephalopods like octopi.
tl;dr: In an alternate universe, we are squid people.

The Drunken Philosopher #5: I Want a Robot Buddy

Let's discuss for a few moments the genesis of artificial intelligence.

We keep seeing it all over popular science-fiction, the whole "AI Overlord" scenario... how it always begins with humanity or some other form of intelligent life attempting to play God by creating a "true" AI (usually in some sort of independent body, but also sometimes as a supercomputer which is capable of monitoring the outside world... in either case, interaction is the key). This inevitably leads to one of two scenarios: either the AI, through observation and analysis, decides that creatures of the fleshy mind are of unreliable judgement, and thus unfit to make decisions for themselves (Space Odyssey, Eagle Eye)... or a series of independent AI-operated robot formerly created for use as slaves or machines of war come to sentience and rebel against the creators which subjected them to such an existence (the Matrix, Terminator, Mass Effect's Geth)

So many of these only portray the AIs as cold, logical thinkers however... what "emotion" they may display (if at all) is generally shown as being merely programmed response to stimuli... essentially, "I have this reaction to this event, because that was how I was made." In other words, a mimicry of emotion; highly predictable and merely processing input. To call such a thing "sentient" or "alive" seems a misnomer; as one of the primary characteristics of life is its unpredictability: our random, emotion-based thought processes, which differ wildly from one individual to another, formed by non-standardized chemical based programming rather than what's possible within the limitations of an OS on a chip... and that's just the physical aspects of the existence we know as a "mind," all unquantifyable spiritual facets aside (that's an entirely different discussion altogether).

Perhaps the first step toward creating a genuine AI should be to create a means by which a thinking computer is able to "understand" the human mind; the way we think, the sheer variety of behavioral patterns, erratic emotional response, an understanding and appreciation for aesthetics, etc. Scientists have been working on supercomputers which progressively "learn," able to adapt to progressively more and more new experiences they are exposed to... but even such a miraculous thing is still only capable of regurgitating information it has received... not really forming its own "opinions," but a consensus based on information fed to it, and only when asked to form such a conclusion, never of its own accord.

So, while such a computer is pretty awesome, perhaps some theories on how we should at least begin to go about teaching it to think like a human being are in order?

First of all, there would have to be some sort of programming added in the beginning which would allow the AI to actively rewrite its own OS to accommodate new ways of processing its data, becoming as mutable as the human mind itself... formatting itself to accommodate new data, instead of the other way around.

As for teaching it to "think like a human," the natural way to accomplish this is to provide as much human input as possible. I don't mean simply giving it free reign to search throughout the internet for various trivia or monitor us through cameras and statistical databases, but something far simpler: the use of surveys as a means of communicating to the AI not just what we do or what our interests are, but more importantly, the "why" behind such decisions and preferences.

Take art appreciation for example. One person can evaluate a piece of art, and appreciate certain aspects of it, while another may like it on entirely different merits, or even not enjoy it at all. Computer software exists which can analyze an image for color composition, others which have the capability to automatically map out vectors in order to inerpret a curve or line, some can even recognize the distinct set of features which comprise a face... but cannot asociate any real meaning to any of that. So we teach it what is so captivating about these elements of the image. Out of the, say, trillions of images across a gamut of genres and skill levels of artistic expression, we select several million completely at random and have an equally random group of (for example) 40 or so people across all age groups and demographics, etc. and a different group for each piece, and have them each describe precisely and in as much detail as possible what it is they like about the work and why. We then input all of this data into our AI, and allow it to grow and eventually perhaps develop an understanding of visual aesthetic.

But why stop at just visual arts? Using wave analyzers and other such tools, can we not apply the same technique to musical works as well? Give the computer a knowledge of which chord progressions and compositional layering structures evoke which emotional responses in varying groups of individuals, which instruments and frequency ranges put us at ease or create tension. Maybe any comments by those surveyed regarding the tempo or pace and the effect thereof would convince the computer to find some way by which to actually percieve time rather than simply measuring it? Then this understanding could be correlated with image analysis of individual frames and perhaps even tracking the flow of movement over the course of them in order to truly understand and appreciate works of film (which many would consider to be the pinnacle of our achievement as a creative people)!

Of course, all of this is simply to get the AI to learn the processes behind the ability to appreciate things the way humans can... not necessarily that it would actually grant them said ability. Not that this would necessarily curtail a robot apocalypse scenario... but hey, at the very least the machines would understand us, for better or worse!

And then there are the computers which can carry on conversations. We are all of course aware of our ability to communicate, and why we do so... but how would we describe the considerable series of processes which goes into formulating our responses (which can range from the honest to the humorous to downright fabrications, and be influenced by anything from current events, emotional states, social forces, one's upbringing, what have you)? As mentioned several paragraphs above, we can create a computer which can "think," and one which can give the sort of response which would suggest an understanding of the statement being responded to. Take the ingenious program "Cleverbot," for example. Though by all appearances it seems to be carrying on a conversation; in actuality it's merely mimicking the millions of conversations already presented to it. In its infancy, the program could only respond in brief, direct statements which would often have little to do with what was actually being said... especially whenever colloquialisms were present. After so long of being corrected and building up its vocabulary and speech patterns based upon heaps of input, it now appears to speak with perfect fluency, and even appears to have something of a personality. Pretty damn impressive, if you ask me. However, even this still boils down to a fairly formulaic process to arrive at a particular result from a given input; it's just become exponentially more proficient at it. While I believe that such a program is a crucial step toward creating a computer which can understand us, it in and of itself is not actually capable of a genuine comprehension of the sort.

Which brings me to my final point: once a machine finally does develop sentience, how are we to actually recognize this trait? The distinction between intelligence and self-awareness is hard to define; we can create programs which behave and react convincingly to stimuli, yet without any true thought process going into such a reaction. There is a surprising number of people with a sort of self-absorbed nature which leads them to believe that, as theirs is the only perspective from which they can view the world, then by the limits of their own perception, they are the only sapient being extant in a world filled with "extras;" considering others of their same species to have the same lack of genuine conscious being as a current AI.

When the moment comes when a computer truly does come to self-awareness, how will it be able to demonstrate such a trait to us?

Is the acceptance of such an artificial mind a sign of open-mindedness, or of gullibility?

The Awesome post

I've come to the realization that I probably use the word "awesome" a bit too much. However, it's the only slang word for such a high degree of "great" which is still in use and thus not "unhip." Personally, I feel that such terms as "shit's so cash" or "so gangsta" are silly at best, and should only be used to ridicule the current state of slang and popular culture, much as "tubular" and "rad" have become for those who had the fortune of growing up in the 80s.
If I had to pick a scale of slang I currently use for one word description of my like for something, in progressive order from to best, I suppose it would go something like this:
Neat <>
"Epic" goes in a different category; though it's often used in a tier above "awesome," I find it more appropriately defined as "worthy of retaining knowledge of (insert event/thing/quote) for future generations." Not necessarily for something specifically good or bad, but rather, as a superlative for "noteworthy."
So, for all the times that I say something's "awesome," please don't see my overuse of the word as a trite cliche or parody of myself or my generation used for sarcastic purpose, but rather, as a sincere expression of my opinion toward something, due to lack of variety in such (appropriate) words in modern vernacular.
Stay awesome, everyone!

The Drunken Philosopher #4: The "what if" for the night

Time for another random train of thought that crossed my mind in the middle of the night:
Suppose there is another planet on which the ecology was not carbon-based. Since oil is a direct byproduct of cellular decay of carbon-based organisms, what sorts of energy sources might they have come up with in its absence?  In addition, since much of our technology has been driven by the development of plastics (which are synthesized from oil), how differently would their technology have evolved with the use of different materials in their stead?
It also occurs to me that there are many substances and chemicals which exist on our planet, which we do not have an immediate use for.  In the case of an ecology for which the entire fundamental basis of composition for its organisms is vastly different from our own, would it not be fair to assume that some of the chemicals for which we have no use, or which may even be harmful to us, may conversely be essential to some other form of life?
Recall that there are many environs even on our own planet within which organisms from the same roots as ourselves have adapted heightened senses or entirely different senses altogether from what we are capable of using; how stimuli imperceptible to us are perceived by these other organisms is naturally not fully understood by us (as the saying goes, "it's like trying to describe a color to someone who never had sight").  Imagine now the advances we may have been able to have made so much sooner, or even the technology we do have which would be obsolete, if we could even do something as simple as seeing infrared or x-rays; or the music we could create with another few octaves of sound to work with... let alone how we could have developed sociologically with something even more "out there" such as telepathy (some fish have an organ which emits a "frequency" used to communicate with one another to coordinate movements underwater, for example.).  Would a species derived from an entirely different set of circumstances from ours even need to develop any form of communication which could be picked up with our scientists' instruments?
We already know that a culture develops along an entirely different path depending on its environment; what if there was some other sense, the nature of which we are not even capable of grasping the concept of, which allowed a culture to perceive some fundamental fact of science or the universe which we are still struggling to figure out; and how differently a society would develop without the need to create myths and legends to explain phenomena the workings thereof seem beyond logical explanation?  Would a social desire for religion even exist, if we developed a sense with which we could witness the energies of life coalescing and dispersing at every birth and death occurrence?

The Drunken Philosopher #3: Religion and Humanity's Significance

Anyone who would doubt the significance of humanity needs only to look upon the history of this world, wherein our species has displayed an absurdly greater mastery of our environment and potential to change the image of an entire planet than any which came before us.
While there exists scientific evidence of our gradual divergence from other, less sophisticated organisms through the process of evolution, nonetheless, this is no reason to assume that our species is not special.  The debate still exists between those who steadfastly believe that the presence of our species is merely a fluke in the ultimate scheme of the universe and that we are destined to merely fade into the void, with our only testament being a background of cosmic noise and space probes which no other sentient species will ever discover, and those who believe that we were placed here by a being on a higher plane of existence, with a purpose of being a sort of "master species" for this planet, with dominance over all lesser species, and in some systems of belief, over eachother as well; until we have reached a point at which we are prepared to join with whatever entity placed us here.  Our unique role in relation to other species of our world is such that at this time, there are compelling arguments in the favor of both sides of this eternal debate of beliefs.  As my beliefs compel me to take a more objective view of the world around me, I have, over the years, come to a different conclusion altogether.
Life is self-purposed.  The primal desire to exist and thrive, the force of evolution, and our free will and intuitive curiosity about the universe are all interconnected.  Life itself is a tenacious survivor; if environmental conditions are such that life begins to struggle, as long as there is a will to continue to exist and the changes are gradual enough, life will nearly always find a way to adapt and survive.  Scientists throughout history have witnessed this self-preservation instinct in even the lowest forms of life; however, the mysteries of life are such that even the most intensive of scientific research cannot pinpoint the exact cause of this basic urge.  To say that it is merely a chemical response system is also debatable, as there have been found microbial lifeforms which never advanced beyond that point, whose chemical composition are vastly different from those of other species, which nonetheless still exhibit the same self-preservation instinct as any other organism of that level of complexity.
That's right, as a species we have managed to split the atom, even collided sub-atomic particles to discover ever smaller objects of matter than current theory holds should even be viably possible to exist within the understanding of physics within this plane of existence... and yet, we still cannot find the source of our desire to exist.
If you are of an open mind, allow me to share my personal theories toward this subject.
Firstly, a common theme throughout nearly all religions is the mystery of the entity which created us.  Some common statements are that (1) we were created in God's image, (2) that no man has ever seen the true face of God, and (3) that God exists in all of us.  We should keep in mind that at the core of nearly every religious conflict throughout our history has been the disagreement over the exact form of our creator... but this directly conflicts with the second point listed above.  How can any side ultimately be proven right if they cannot agree on what should be an inherent truth at the core of their own beliefs?  In addition, with our current understanding of the nature of existence, is it not fair to assume that if something has a finite, perceivable form, that it therefore cannot be omnipresent?  Or, by assuming that the entity we all have come to know as God even has a finite and perceivable form, are we not attempting to suggest that there is a limitation to a being which is understood to be omnipotent?  The most simple conclusion in all of these questions is that what we refer to as God simply has no specific form which we can understand, and presents itself within our physical realm as the desire to exist... and that Yahweh, Allah, and all others are just titles which various human cultures have come up with as a means to identify the exact same thing.  In other words, while one could argue that, as we are currently the most advanced species on the planet, that we are the closest to God's "image," there is still the issue that most cultures' understanding of God is based off of their own cultures' influence;  that, in essence, we have created many Gods in our own image.
Essentially, the conclusion which I have come to is that God is present within our physical realm as the desire for continued existence, which in turn influences the direction of evolution as a means of achieving this goal.  It is an influence on living beings which transcends the physical realm, which gives rise to what we know as souls and our ability to make decisions out of our own unique perspectives regardless of cultural influence.  There should be no reason for the concepts of "free will" and "faith in a higher power" to be mutually exclusive as many people seem to believe; rather, can it not be said that these concepts can not only coexist, but are even one and the same?  Perhaps the scientific evidence of humanity's rapid development from lesser species, the tales of our sudden creationism, and even our desire to explore and expand our frontiers are all, in the end, different means of expressing the exact same ideal.  Our purpose in existence is, above all else, to continue to exist.  This is a desire that is inherent in all living things, which transcends our physical being, even after the physical body has long since been extinguished.

The Empire of the "OhShitPlz" Icon

A few years ago, while bored (as with when the vast majority of more interesting; wouldn't necessarily say "better" ideas come to me), I decided to create a joke account on DeviantArt as part of the "_plz" craze, or for those unfamiliar with the site and its memes, an account created for the sole purpose of using its User Icon as a large Emoticon on the site.
Thus, the OhShitPlz was born.
It was a nearly instant success.  Within roughly a year, it had surpassed my actual account in terms of popularity and pageviews, despite only having three actual items in its gallery; all themed around the icon.  As time passed, there came to be several pieces of fanart making reference to it, which I, of course, added to my Favorites with great pleasure.
A considerable length of time passes; the joke account now has 3 times the pageviews of my true account.  There are even other accounts which are permutations of the original, made by others along the way.  And then, just recently, while doing random searches on a whim I stumbled upon this.
Yes, it would appear that the OhShitPlz's influence has begun to spread beyond the sphere of DA, with a (albeit small) following even on such a major networking site.
Further searches revealed an OhShitPlz account on Photobucket for the utilization of the Emote on an even greater range of sites and forums; even a few hits on Gaia which link back to the original!
Such a wide-reaching propagation of a meme, with the only effort required on my part being a handful of drawings and occasionally logging into the original account on DA in order to interact with its fans.
Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?

The Drunken Philosopher #2: Social Networking Truly Social?

I sometimes wonder if the concept of the traditional "reunion" shall be supplanted by recent advances in online social networking. It does have the obvious advantages of being free and simple to keep touch with others; in addition, Skype and other means of teleconferencing even eliminate the time and travel cost requirements of a genuine face-to-face meeting!
Of course, there is subtle sarcasm in these words.  Essentially, as a society, our newfound social aptitude seems to be, at the same time, making us more socially inept.  Is it not a common perception that we value a meeting by how rare it is; or to quote Thomas Haynes Bayly: "Absence makes the heart grow fonder?"  It's no secret that words, regardless of their significance, lose much of their impact when related via impersonal means.  The ability to share jubilation or commiserate over a life-changing event in person carries with it a certain level of emotional frankness and intimacy which simply cannot be conveyed through mere text; while video communication may seem a suitable surrogate, sometimes such a simple gesture as a hug or a high-five are irreplaceable instruments with which to epitomize a conversation and its meanings.
Maybe I'm just being old fashioned... however, it seems to me that while social networking is an invaluable tool which allows people to maintain bonds with others despite the expanses of distance and time, those bonds are, by necessity of their very nature, generally not as strong as those with genuine personal contact.