Later this evening Posterous will announce the ability to automatically post feed stories to your Facebook Page every time you create a new post. So far the only tool that has been available is the Facebook Notes application which imports your blog feed. While you’ll need a Posterous account to sync with your Page, the site provides individuals and businesses with a great platform for posting content.

Included in each feed story will be some of the photos and text from the post that you’ve created. As Posterous states, “Due to the limitations of the Facebook platform, we’re unable to post to your page’s photo and video albums. Hopefully Facebook will support this in the near future!” I’m guessing that we’ll see tools in the future that integrate with Wordpress, Tumblr, and other blogging platforms but as for now, this is the only application that appears to do this.

Automatically generating feed stories is immensely important for larger news organizations that churn out large numbers of articles at a time. While Posterous is not a platform for large organizations, this new feature will make it much easier to post to your Facebook Page quickly without thinking twice. Have you seen other tools to automatically generate feed stories from posts?

Will you be taking advantage of this new Posterous feature?

I don't much use Facebook, so Facebook messages (which appear in my email) are the main thing that prompts me to log in. However, a message this morning, from someone I knew in high school but haven't otherwise spoken to in 25 years, was a bit different than the norm. The message merely said, "Look at this!" and gave a link to "fbstarter.com".

I was suspicious already, since it seemed a bit unlikely that this person would have sent me a message, and the message itself was inexplicable. But, I'm on a Mac, and I have good backups, so I decided to visit the URL. It displayed what looked like a normal Facebook login page, but Firefox hadn't pre-filled my login credentials, and the domain was indeed fbstarter.com, which was just strange. Warning bells were going off in my head, so I immediately closed the page.

A quick Google search later, and I discovered that Facebook is being used to send phishing attacks. Neither the fbstarter.com nor another domain being used, fbaction.net, are dangerous, but both will try to steal your login credentials so your account can be used to launch future attacks. If you use the same login credentials on other sites, I strongly encourage you to change your passwords as well.

I suspect that the initial attack vector was purely through forged email, but once accounts had been compromised, the attacks were launched through Facebook itself; the one I received certainly was.

Facebook has released a statement saying that they're blocking the fbaction.net domain from being shared on the site (I couldn't use that domain in a comment to the sender of the message), removing referring content, and resetting passwords of senders so the attackers can no longer access those accounts. None of the coverage I saw mentioned the fbstarter.com domain, so it appears that the attackers can easily tweak the attack. Now the entire situation may devolve into a game of whack-a-mole, as the attackers come up with new phishing attempts and Facebook blocks them.

The moral of the story? Be very suspicious of messages you receive on Facebook or from Facebook via email. If they contain links that are at all generic or dubious, verify the message with the sender before clicking the links. And if you follow any links that display a Facebook login page but do not have the http://www.facebook.com/ domain in the address bar, do not log in.

Microsoft's MacBU: Supporting Mac users with Office 2008.
Straighten up your Office with the latest updates to Word,
Excel, PowerPoint, and Entourage. Update today at Mactopia!
<http://www.microsoft.com/mac/downloads.mspx>

It'll be a while before we're all done reading tributes to her, but before the feeling passes, we'd like to raise our glasses to her not for an impressive theatrical career, not for her scene-stealing turn as Vera Charles in the horrible Mame, and not even for her iconic performance as Dorothy Zbornak in the beloved Golden Girls. No, what we want to remember is Maude.

We were only kids when she burst onto the scene in the '70s sitcom, but in retrospect, Maude was an incredibly groundbreaking character and sadly, once she broke that ground, no one came along to build on it. Mary Richards is often lauded as the first feminist character on network television and she was, but she was also a very watered-down version of feminism and sadly, too many writers and actresses followed the Mary Richards model in the decades to come while ignoring the far more powerful and subversive Maude Findlay template.

Loud-mouthed, angry, acerbic and much-divorced Maude was a character we'd have a hard time believing ever existed on television at all if we hadn't seen her with our own eyes. She wasn't the desperate-to-be-liked Mary Richards; she was more in the I-don't-give-a-flying-fuck-WHAT-you-think-of me mold and as such, she benefited from the fact that there was really only one actress out there capable of playing her and, in a coming-together of perfect elements that so rarely happens in television, the former Bernice Frankel landed the role. How revolutionary was this part? Just try and imagine a current sitcom starring a just barely pre-menopausal title character who finds out she's pregnant, admits she doesn't want to BE pregnant, and then, without telling her husband, exercises her right to terminate the pregnancy. That this story line was televised over 30 years ago is mindblowing and a very sad commentary on the current state of network television. But rather than dwell on that, let's salute the bravery of the actress who took that risk.

If you're too young to remember her or have never seen the show, the first season is on DVD and you need to run out right now to get it. Hopefully, with Bea's death, the subsequent seasons will get released soon. Dorothy Zbornak was a funny, and her own way, ground-breaking character, but Maude Findlay was a fucking revolutionary.

Here's to ya, Bea.

Star Trek will disappoint no one.

As the lights dimmed and the familiar Star Trek Federation logo slid on screen, the emotion of all those hours of watching Next Generation reruns as a kid came sloshing back into my brain, dripping out of my eyes as tears of pure happiness. I expect that it was essentially the same emotion Star Wars fans felt during the opening credits of Episode 1, but without the massive letdown afterwards. (Ha ha, suckers.)

But yes, to answer your question, there's Kirk, there's Spock, and there's everyone you expect (even Pike!). Not all of the same mannerisms are there, but if you wanted to see the old actors you'd go watch the first six movies again. This implies that Kirk doesn't do a two-hour Shatner impression, which is, of course, good news. Instead, he plays Kirk as a intelligent, brash, but friendly youngster that has confidence oozing out of every torpedo tube. And the new Spock is more Sylar than Spock, to be honest; though the rest of the casting is essentially spot on.

So long as you go into the movie expecting a "Star Trek" movie, in that there's space and aliens and action and shooting and torpedoes and pew pew pew, you'll come out happy. The movie is targeted enough toward the mainstream in that someone with zero Trek experience would enjoy it. Director J.J. Abrams also gives enough shout outs to old time staples that trekkers will be giddy at the slight nods and fanservice that say, in essence, "thank you for supporting us all these years, now here's something you asked for."

Think of it like Casino Royale was to the James Bond franchise: fewer gadgets, more action and an incredibly pugilistic lead. And lens flares. Lots, and lots, and lots of lens flares.

Kirk's Enterprise has never looked better. These guys took the original ship, combined it with some designs of the Enterprise-B, then mashed it up with Picard's Enterprise-E and then added a dash of '60s non-Trek Sci Fi. The set design, however, is almost all touchscreen (like TNG), but with a tremendously updated UI. I'd hate to call it Apple-y, but there's lots of glass and slick white finishes. Retro this is not—you'll barely be able to equate the bridge to the original's, other than the fact that the players are all sitting in the right places. Why Bones canoodles in the bridge so much instead of where he's supposed to be is still beyond me.

And the plot? The plot makes as much sense as any other Star Trek movie. There's even a very good explanation of why this movie is the way it is, which is the most I can say about that.

This is what Star Trek needs right now. After writing on Next Generation, Ron Moore went on (about a decade later) to reimagine Battlestar Galactica, a relatively realistic show (topic-wise) that just happened to be set in space. Sci Fi fans have moved on from the utopian, and what many accused as sterile, confines of TNG to a grittier, less kempt future.

That's not to say Star Trek is now gritty—it's just more...modern. And more sexy. Like when you upgrade from a six piece KFC meal to a 12 piece bucket: you're going to get more breast and thigh.

It also doesn't have any crap about the Prime Directive or any undertones about race that TOS and TNG dealt with, but it is a very good "restart" of the franchise. With this film as the base, I cannot wait to see where the franchise goes from here.

Bonus: there's a four-issue Star Trek: Countdown comic series that prequels the movie. Though, you might want to wait until after you watch to read, since it gives away a few plot points. To tell you more would be to spoil too much. It's too much even to tell you what KIND of fans would like the comic. You can download the first one here for your iPhone.

What is disco? The term is still one of the most misunderstood in the musical lexicon. Is it the source of all bad fashion? A lounge-worthy soundtrack for swinging lovers? A category almost exclusively occupied by Donna Summer and the Bee Gees? This week's "American Idol" battle round implied all of the above, while doing nothing to illuminate this wonderful, misunderstood pop era.

Instead of reveling in disco's lush, open field of sultry rhythms and sweeping melodic lines, the Top Seven took it to Vegas, the rock arena, and other ill-advised "creative" corners, with hackneyed arrangements and awkward performances that suggested the whole crew had already busted into the Tab Energy Drink cooler backstage. Those who adhered to the style at all stumbled trying to hit its turns, and even those who sang well seemed strangely immune to the joy in songs that had once helped millions find heaven on the dance floor.

Perhaps I am being too harsh. There were high points, none wholly unexpected. Adam Lambert knows by now that "Idol" voters who find his rock side too freaky melt under the electric torch of his ballads; transforming the Gibb brothers-authored Yvonne Elliman hit "If I Can't Have You" into a Piaf-worthy cri de couer, he was just playing to the crowd. Kris Allen made Summer's ode to working girls, "She Works Hard for the Money," sound like that song Carlos Santana did with Wyclef -- but such clever switches have become his trademark.

And Alison Iraheta, looking outrageously great in what appeared to be full-body pleather, lent a goth-metal twist to yet another Summer song, "Hot Stuff." Fine. But she could have unearthed her inner Deborah Harry, already so near the surface, with "Heart of Glass." Allen, this season's most graceful musician, might have challenged himself with a song by the great band Chic. And the thought of what Lambert could have done with Sylvester's prideful anthem "You Make Me Feel (Mighty Real)" -- that missed chance breaks my heart.

With one exception, it's hardly worth mentioning the night's other strivers. Lil Rounds and Matt Giraud seemed resigned to the chopping block; Anoop Desai, still in full "Date Me" mode, got a little too casual with his bravado while turning yet another Summer tune, "Dim All the Lights," into an homage to Brian McKnight. Danny Gokey does deserve credit for a spirited and accurate vocal on "September," an Earth, Wind and Fire song with a typically serpentine melody. But that hoofing! Never has the specter of Taylor Hicks loomed so large.

Ultimately, the problem wasn't with the singers tonight; it was a larger one, embedded in the "Idol" formula. Despite its Velveeta reputation, disco was actually a music that vastly expanded pop's parameters, uniting funk beats and rock guitars, synthesizer swirls and gospel vocals, the sexual fantasies of libertine Italian producers and the liberating wails of black American divas. Oh, and Abba!

The musical range "Idol" traverses is tiny by comparison. It's basically crossover pop played by a competent studio band steeped in the grand inflections of Celine Dion, Bryan Adams and other blockbuster stars. It's nearly impossible for an "Idol" competitor to transcend the limits of the show's formulas (though Lambert keeps pushing).

Disco might not have seemed the likeliest arena in which these deficiencies would be exposed, but all it would take is one time-machine trip back to one of the great hedonistic dance floors of the 1970s to remind a music lover how much more expansive music seemed then. Still, the thought of Simon doing the bump? I think I'd rather suffer through Whitney week.

-- Ann Powers

Photo: Fox

Before we go any further, if you haven't seen the original 1975 documentary, you really should, especially if you plan on seeing the HBO film. Part one appears to be missing, but you can start with part 2 here and work your way through the rest of it. In short, it tells the story of Big Edie and Little Edie, the aunt and cousin of Jackie O; Hamptons old money after the money dried up and no one cared about them anymore. Two charismatic and unique women living their lives in a crumbling old mansion, surrounded by at least a dozen cats (and God knows how many racoons) with nothing but their memories and each other to keep them company.

For reasons that we couldn't possibly articulate, the documentary became a cult classic and Little Edie in particular became something of an icon for gay men. While it would be easy to declare their story merely tragic (and there is plenty of tragedy), the documentary showed that with all their fears and eccentricities and codependency, there was still a fierce bond between this mother and daughter and a deep, largely misunderstood love there too. Jessica and Drew (not to mention the film's writer/producer/director, Michael Sucsy) had their work cut out for them. The original documentary has a fanatic following and any deviations or shortcomings could have been seen as disastrous.

So, how did everyone do? Pretty damn well. Jessica Lange tops the list with an astonishing performance as she ages from her late thirties to her late seventies, nailing the mimicry the role required but also giving the character a depth and level of realism that's haunting. Too often when an actor is required to play an aged character, they can never quite pull it off. There's always something behind the eyes and under the layers of makeup that gives away the spark of youth. Not so here. As we said, her mimicry was letter-perfect (there are times when you'd swear they were using footage from the original film), but she also manages to convey that vagueness of thought and emotion that the aged so often have. The weariness as well as the nostalgia.

As for Drew, she definitely gave the performance of her life, although she's a distant second to Jessica's performance. She also nailed the mimicry and effectively conveyed the ... we hesitate to say "craziness," because Little Edie was so much more than that. We'll just say "extreme unconventionality" and leave it at that. Like Jessica, Drew was required to play someone decades older than her but unfortunately the bubbly girlishness of Drew Barrymore shone through more than once, reminding us that this wasn't a woman in her late fifties, but an all-too-recognizable woman in her early thirties. Still, she did an admirable job and like Jessica, there were times when you'd swear you were looking at the original footage.

If you loved these women, these unconventional, fierce, deeply damaged women, then you'll love this movie. If you've never been exposed to them, you'll still enjoy the film, but we can't stress enough how much more you'll appreciate it if you see the documentary first.

The movie goes much further than the documentary, showing the background and attempting to offer reasons why they allowed themselves to decline. Unfortunately, Big and Little Edie never did fully answer those questions themselves and thus, the film can't either. Still, we have to admit, it gave us much to think about; the underside of love and how it can warp into codependency; how even the fiercest, deepest love can wound as much as it sustains; and how a life (or two) can be completely derailed by one or two decisions that may have seemed minor at the time. As we said, the film couldn't answer all these questions but we walked home from the theater in almost total silence, pondering them.