Apple CEO Tim Cook this week published an open letter in which he condemned a court order requiring Apple to "unlock" an iPhone that belonged to one of the perpetrators of last December's San Bernardino massacre. Apple claims that requiring the company to create a "back door" to hack into the device represents some unconscionable violation of privacy rights. And while in general I find it heartening that the tech colossus has such a passionate regard for customer privacy, I'm frankly bewildered by Cook's response. Am I missing something?
People have a right to privacy. But privacy, like any other right, has limits. Police or other government agents may not come into my home and search it--unless they have a warrant expressly allowing them to do so. Law enforcement agents may tap phones and read text messages, as long as, again, they convince a judge that such intrusions are necessary. How is this case any different? A judge has signed an order allowing law enforcement to overrule an individual's right to privacy--and frankly, since the owner of this particular iPhone was killed after his attack, I doubt he's particularly concerned with his right to privacy anymore. (And on a visceral level, I feel he forfeited that right when he and his wife decided to gun down a dozen innocent people at a Christmas party, but that's kind of beside the point.)
Apple, I think, claims that the request is unreasonable because it is forcing the company to create a mechanism--which doesn't currently exist?--to compromise its own security systems. They claim that this mechanism could then allow others to hack other iPhones. Which I guess is a legitimate concern, but does anyone believe that hackers aren't already trying to figure out ways to hack iPhones? If Apple engineers do create this workaround, will we all really be so much less safe than we are now.
Another objection I've heard is that, if the US government can compel Apple to unlock its technology, then what's to stop other governments from requiring such accommodations. Well, nothing, I guess. But, what's your point? Governments enforce laws. If Apple operates in a country, it is subject to the laws of that country. Like any "citizen" (corporations are people, right?), Apple can dislike the laws and can use its considerable financial and political muscle to advocate for changes to those laws--but it can't simply disregard the laws. And this is true whether we're talking about US law or the laws of other countries.
Finally, some have suggested that Apple simply cannot bypass the encryption standards it has programmed into its devices--that is, that they don't have the technological capacity to do so. I believe the technical term for this response is "bullshit." I don't believe for one second that Apple engineers could not figure out a way to unlock an iPhone. Put it this way: If some evil genius creates a virus designed to target and destroy Apple's internal networks, and if the only way to prevent the release of this virus was to crack open the evil genius's iPhone, I suspect the good men and women at Apple would figure out a way to do so.
I have the same basic concerns as anyone else over the tendency of government agencies to intrude into the lives of private citizens. But as long as the government is playing by the well-established rules of law, then corporations have no excuse not to play by the same rules.
Showing posts with label Technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Technology. Show all posts
Friday, February 19, 2016
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Just Another Day at Solipsist Central--Workplace Edition
A few weeks ago, my place of employment upgraded its phone system. None too soon, I might add: I had had the same phone since I began working at the college, over twelve years ago. Now I have all the telephonic bells and whistles I could ever desire: Caller ID! A speakerphone! An online directory! Cool flashy lights! I am as giddy as a kid on Christmas--if that kid had had a very, very sad life up to that point.
Today I received an e-mail from the head of the college's IT Department, which I'm told stands for "information technology." Department. The e-mail contained information about where to dispose of the old phones. Relevant information, to be sure. I couldn't help but note an undercurrent of sarcasm, however, as the e-mail proceeded to give detailed information about how to disconnect the old phones, should they still be connected. I remind you: I work at a college--staffed, as you might expect, by college-educated personnel. I questioned the necessity of a paragraph in an e-mail dedicated to an explanation of how to, not to put too fine a point on it, unplug a phone! And then the e-mail concluded--I kid you not--"If you are not comfortable unplugging your own phone, please call the Help Desk so we can assist you." I would pay to listen in on those conversations.
"Yes, I need my phone unplugged, and I was hoping I could get someone to help me with it. I don't have any protective gloves, and I'm worried about getting bitten by phone-hornets."
"Hi, I tried disconnecting my phone, but I think I did it wrong, because I'm talking to you."
"I need some help with my phone. And my shoelaces."
Today I received an e-mail from the head of the college's IT Department, which I'm told stands for "information technology." Department. The e-mail contained information about where to dispose of the old phones. Relevant information, to be sure. I couldn't help but note an undercurrent of sarcasm, however, as the e-mail proceeded to give detailed information about how to disconnect the old phones, should they still be connected. I remind you: I work at a college--staffed, as you might expect, by college-educated personnel. I questioned the necessity of a paragraph in an e-mail dedicated to an explanation of how to, not to put too fine a point on it, unplug a phone! And then the e-mail concluded--I kid you not--"If you are not comfortable unplugging your own phone, please call the Help Desk so we can assist you." I would pay to listen in on those conversations.
"Yes, I need my phone unplugged, and I was hoping I could get someone to help me with it. I don't have any protective gloves, and I'm worried about getting bitten by phone-hornets."
"Hi, I tried disconnecting my phone, but I think I did it wrong, because I'm talking to you."
"I need some help with my phone. And my shoelaces."
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Stem the STEM Tide
When I first started college, I pursued a major in acting, a degree choice that was accepted by my liberal, teen-of-the-60's mother and greeted with no small amount of eye-rolling by any number of friends and well-wishers: What, exactly, did I think I was going to do with a degree in acting?. I suppose on some level I, too, asked myself that question and came up with an unsatisfactory answer because, midway through my sophomore year I switched my major from the dramatic arts to the more socially acceptable English, with a soupcon of education-training thrown in. Strangely enough, this was seen as a rational move, a practical step down the road to responsible adulthood.
Nowadays, though, such a change of major would elicit so much eye-rolling as to strain the optic nerves: Not only would a switch from drama to English be seen as, at best, a lateral move on the continuum of frivolity, but I would also be condemned for wasting my time and money on the inevitable inefficiencies of transferring. Nowadays, if a student goes to college intending to study anything less obviously practical than, say, applied nuclear physics, he risks incurring the wrath of parents and society alike. English--a major once so respectable as to inspire musical-theater balladry--is now just another academic dead-end.
Colleges have begun to take notice. At Stanford and Harvard and any number of other bastions of higher education, administrators look on with concern as the enrollments in once proud humanities departments continue to shrink. While the trend didn't start with the global economic meltdown, the recession has seemingly channeled ever-greater number of students into the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and math)--these seeming to offer students greater chances of gainful employment upon graduation. Why, the thinking goes, would anyone waste four-plus years and potentially tens of thousands of dollars on a degree in something as squishy as English?
I have to admit, I find myself on the defensive when confronting the question, "What good is an English degree?" I mean, there is something apparently self-indulgent about spending years reading and discussing good books when one could spend those same years learning how to splice a nucleotide to a particle accelerator. Or whatever it is that science people do. Then again, maybe nucleotide-splicing is just as self-indulgent in its way, as the people who major in science probably enjoy lab work just as much as English majors enjoy books.
Or at least, they probably did, back in the days when not everyone felt compelled to major in "practical" fields whether they wanted to or not. Which I think is an important point: Do we have more STEM majors because people want to major in STEM fields or simply because people think that only by majoring in these fields will they be able to find work? And if the reason is the latter, then won't they be disappointed when they graduate and find themselves having to compete with a multitude of other graduates for what will still be a limited number of positions? And won't the ones who get the best jobs still be the ones whose enthusiasm for the subject has led them to achieve at the highest levels--the ones who probably would have gone into the sciences anyway?
Humanities majors may not be as well-versed in the workings of the atom or the proper way to run an economy as those who pursue more scientific fields. But those who study English or philosophy or music or, yes, drama develop valuable skills nonetheless--communication skills, writing skills, those oft-mentioned critical thinking skills that everyone values so highly. Not everyone, frankly, is cut out for scientific careers--I'm certainly not--so why shouldn't students follow their passions to find something at which they can excel? The jobs will come. For what it's worth, while most of my fellow drama majors may not have achieved Broadway superstardom or landed lucrative multi-picture deals, they have pretty much all gone on to successful careers in any number of fields. Who could argue with that?
Nowadays, though, such a change of major would elicit so much eye-rolling as to strain the optic nerves: Not only would a switch from drama to English be seen as, at best, a lateral move on the continuum of frivolity, but I would also be condemned for wasting my time and money on the inevitable inefficiencies of transferring. Nowadays, if a student goes to college intending to study anything less obviously practical than, say, applied nuclear physics, he risks incurring the wrath of parents and society alike. English--a major once so respectable as to inspire musical-theater balladry--is now just another academic dead-end.
Colleges have begun to take notice. At Stanford and Harvard and any number of other bastions of higher education, administrators look on with concern as the enrollments in once proud humanities departments continue to shrink. While the trend didn't start with the global economic meltdown, the recession has seemingly channeled ever-greater number of students into the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and math)--these seeming to offer students greater chances of gainful employment upon graduation. Why, the thinking goes, would anyone waste four-plus years and potentially tens of thousands of dollars on a degree in something as squishy as English?
I have to admit, I find myself on the defensive when confronting the question, "What good is an English degree?" I mean, there is something apparently self-indulgent about spending years reading and discussing good books when one could spend those same years learning how to splice a nucleotide to a particle accelerator. Or whatever it is that science people do. Then again, maybe nucleotide-splicing is just as self-indulgent in its way, as the people who major in science probably enjoy lab work just as much as English majors enjoy books.
Or at least, they probably did, back in the days when not everyone felt compelled to major in "practical" fields whether they wanted to or not. Which I think is an important point: Do we have more STEM majors because people want to major in STEM fields or simply because people think that only by majoring in these fields will they be able to find work? And if the reason is the latter, then won't they be disappointed when they graduate and find themselves having to compete with a multitude of other graduates for what will still be a limited number of positions? And won't the ones who get the best jobs still be the ones whose enthusiasm for the subject has led them to achieve at the highest levels--the ones who probably would have gone into the sciences anyway?
Humanities majors may not be as well-versed in the workings of the atom or the proper way to run an economy as those who pursue more scientific fields. But those who study English or philosophy or music or, yes, drama develop valuable skills nonetheless--communication skills, writing skills, those oft-mentioned critical thinking skills that everyone values so highly. Not everyone, frankly, is cut out for scientific careers--I'm certainly not--so why shouldn't students follow their passions to find something at which they can excel? The jobs will come. For what it's worth, while most of my fellow drama majors may not have achieved Broadway superstardom or landed lucrative multi-picture deals, they have pretty much all gone on to successful careers in any number of fields. Who could argue with that?
Monday, October 21, 2013
Training Day
Today, we received training on our new telephone system!
I'm glad we can finally get rid of those old Roman-numeral keypads. No more dialing ix for an outside line!
I'm glad we can finally get rid of those old Roman-numeral keypads. No more dialing ix for an outside line!
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Just Another Day at Solipsist Central: Workplace Edition
STUDENT: Excuse me, could you help me on the computers?
SOLIPSIST: I can try.
STU: I'm trying to get on the regular internet.
SOL: The "regular" internet?
STU: Yeah, you know, I want to look at, like, job listings and stuff.
SOL: Oh, OK, let me see what you're doing.
(I go over to the computer he's using. There appears to be a Word document open.)
STU: You can close that.
(I close the document and click the Explorer icon. The college's homepage pops up immediately.)
SOL: OK, well, it seems to be working now.
STU: No, I want to get to the regular internet. This just takes me to the college's internet.
SOL: Oh. Well. Um. What does the "regular" internet look like?
STU: It says "Yahoo."
SOL: OK. Well, you see that rectangle? If you type "yahoo" in there, it will open up the regular internet.
STU: Really? (He sits down.) Capital 'y'?
SOL: Sure why not.
STU: (Types 'yahoo' and opens the regular internet.) Cool. You're awesome!
It's true. I am awesome.
SOLIPSIST: I can try.
STU: I'm trying to get on the regular internet.
SOL: The "regular" internet?
STU: Yeah, you know, I want to look at, like, job listings and stuff.
SOL: Oh, OK, let me see what you're doing.
(I go over to the computer he's using. There appears to be a Word document open.)
STU: You can close that.
(I close the document and click the Explorer icon. The college's homepage pops up immediately.)
SOL: OK, well, it seems to be working now.
STU: No, I want to get to the regular internet. This just takes me to the college's internet.
SOL: Oh. Well. Um. What does the "regular" internet look like?
STU: It says "Yahoo."
SOL: OK. Well, you see that rectangle? If you type "yahoo" in there, it will open up the regular internet.
STU: Really? (He sits down.) Capital 'y'?
SOL: Sure why not.
STU: (Types 'yahoo' and opens the regular internet.) Cool. You're awesome!
It's true. I am awesome.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
The Solipsist Reads the Paper (So You Don't Have To)
Buried in a report about the Nemocalypse battering the Northeast was this little tidbit: "Maine declared a partial emergency, allowing it to suspend federal transportation rules, extend worker hours and bring in extra crews from Canada to assist with storm damage repair."
Dear Maine, I know you're digging out from snowfalls of biblical proportions, but don't be snowblind to the dangers posed by "well-meaning" Canadians! Once these subversive maple-suckers gain a toehold in American soil, there's no telling where they'll stop! This time next year, we could all be sucking on Molsons and acting politely to each other! I urge all my Maine readers to resist the Canadian surge. And in case I have no Maine readers, I encourage my followers around the Northeast to form a human microphone (a la Occupy Wall Street) to scream this warning to our for-the-moment compatriots in the Lobster State (or whatever).
Of course, if the Canadians DO manage to infiltrate America, we may just be able to sic a few drones on 'em. During confirmation hearings for John Brennan as CIA director, the nominee revealed that the Obama administration has discussed the feasibility of creating a special court (along the lines of the FISA court, which currently rules on the admissibility of wiretapping) that would hear arguments about whether an individual--particularly an American citizen--could be targeted for drone-strikes.
Personally, if I were a judge, you could not PAY me to sit on such a court! I would TOTALLY do it for free! I mean, come on! "How was your day, Dear?" "Oh, not bad. Had a few meetings. Lunch with Roger. Authorized death from above." How cool would that be?
I probably wouldn't last long in the job, though. I think the administration would grow tired of my compulsion to include on all my orders lines from the movie "300" or pseudo-Schwarzeneggerian sign-offs: "Hasta la vista, terrorists! You have not a REMOTE chance of avoiding being DRONED und CRATERED!"
Another article profiles the teenager who unwittingly helped ignite the Syrian revolts that have so far left thousands dead and hundreds pf thousands displaced. The teenager (whom the paper does not name, for obvious reasons) inspired rebellion when he was arrested and tortured for participating in the relatively innocuous "crime" of anti-regime graffiti: "He watched his cousin spray-paint the wall of a school in the city of Dara’a with a short, impish challenge to President Bashar al-Assad, a trained ophthalmologist, about the spreading national revolts.
“'It’s your turn, doctor,' the cousin wrote."
All I can say is, an opthalmologist AND a sadistic dictator? SOMEBODY had quite the "Tiger Mom."
An increasingly popular app called Snapchat combines the availability of instantaneous chatting provided by Facebook and Twitter with the ephemerality of those dissolving cassettes at the beginning of every episode of "Mission: Impossible." It seems that people--especially younger folks--are growing weary of having every youthful indiscretion stored indefinitely on the world's servers. Snapchat messages and pictures automatically self-delete after a set period of time, encouraging people to express themselves more revealingly than they might do on a less transitory platform. I think this is a great idea, and I am already developing the app that I think will be the logical successor to Snapchat: I call it, "Talking to People."
In New York, the Department of Homeless Services is paying landlords thousands of dollars to rent rooms that would normally go for a few hundred. I would hereby like to officially offer up my spare bedroom (formerly known as SOS's room) for use by New York's Department of Homeless Services.
Finally, John Karlin, formerly of Bell Labs, has died. Actually, he died on January 28. I guess the Times delayed the announcement of Karlin's death to spare his family the crush of paparazzi that would otherwise have surely disrupted his funeral.
Who was John E. Karlin, you ask? (Don't pretend you know!) He was a pioneer in the field of industrial psychology, the study of the way that human beings interact on a psychological and emotional level with technology. The study of the way people interact physically with technology is known as ergonomics--or Japanese pornography.
Anyway, we largely have Karlin to thank for the layout of the touch-tone phone and its many descendants. Much time was spent deciding, for example, the appropriate size of the buttons, as well as their layout: lower numbers on top vs. lower numbers on bottom, that kind of thing. All I can say is, I'm glad Karlin's team rejected the proposed "QWERTY" keypad (or, more accurately, "KWERTY"), which would have had the top row go 5-9-3 and placed the "star" key (which even then nobody had a use for) where the seven is today. Rest in Peace, Mr. Karlin. To hear a eulogy, please press the pound key or remain on the line.
Dear Maine, I know you're digging out from snowfalls of biblical proportions, but don't be snowblind to the dangers posed by "well-meaning" Canadians! Once these subversive maple-suckers gain a toehold in American soil, there's no telling where they'll stop! This time next year, we could all be sucking on Molsons and acting politely to each other! I urge all my Maine readers to resist the Canadian surge. And in case I have no Maine readers, I encourage my followers around the Northeast to form a human microphone (a la Occupy Wall Street) to scream this warning to our for-the-moment compatriots in the Lobster State (or whatever).
Of course, if the Canadians DO manage to infiltrate America, we may just be able to sic a few drones on 'em. During confirmation hearings for John Brennan as CIA director, the nominee revealed that the Obama administration has discussed the feasibility of creating a special court (along the lines of the FISA court, which currently rules on the admissibility of wiretapping) that would hear arguments about whether an individual--particularly an American citizen--could be targeted for drone-strikes.
Personally, if I were a judge, you could not PAY me to sit on such a court! I would TOTALLY do it for free! I mean, come on! "How was your day, Dear?" "Oh, not bad. Had a few meetings. Lunch with Roger. Authorized death from above." How cool would that be?
I probably wouldn't last long in the job, though. I think the administration would grow tired of my compulsion to include on all my orders lines from the movie "300" or pseudo-Schwarzeneggerian sign-offs: "Hasta la vista, terrorists! You have not a REMOTE chance of avoiding being DRONED und CRATERED!"
Another article profiles the teenager who unwittingly helped ignite the Syrian revolts that have so far left thousands dead and hundreds pf thousands displaced. The teenager (whom the paper does not name, for obvious reasons) inspired rebellion when he was arrested and tortured for participating in the relatively innocuous "crime" of anti-regime graffiti: "He watched his cousin spray-paint the wall of a school in the city of Dara’a with a short, impish challenge to President Bashar al-Assad, a trained ophthalmologist, about the spreading national revolts.
“'It’s your turn, doctor,' the cousin wrote."
All I can say is, an opthalmologist AND a sadistic dictator? SOMEBODY had quite the "Tiger Mom."
An increasingly popular app called Snapchat combines the availability of instantaneous chatting provided by Facebook and Twitter with the ephemerality of those dissolving cassettes at the beginning of every episode of "Mission: Impossible." It seems that people--especially younger folks--are growing weary of having every youthful indiscretion stored indefinitely on the world's servers. Snapchat messages and pictures automatically self-delete after a set period of time, encouraging people to express themselves more revealingly than they might do on a less transitory platform. I think this is a great idea, and I am already developing the app that I think will be the logical successor to Snapchat: I call it, "Talking to People."
In New York, the Department of Homeless Services is paying landlords thousands of dollars to rent rooms that would normally go for a few hundred. I would hereby like to officially offer up my spare bedroom (formerly known as SOS's room) for use by New York's Department of Homeless Services.
Finally, John Karlin, formerly of Bell Labs, has died. Actually, he died on January 28. I guess the Times delayed the announcement of Karlin's death to spare his family the crush of paparazzi that would otherwise have surely disrupted his funeral.
Who was John E. Karlin, you ask? (Don't pretend you know!) He was a pioneer in the field of industrial psychology, the study of the way that human beings interact on a psychological and emotional level with technology. The study of the way people interact physically with technology is known as ergonomics--or Japanese pornography.
Anyway, we largely have Karlin to thank for the layout of the touch-tone phone and its many descendants. Much time was spent deciding, for example, the appropriate size of the buttons, as well as their layout: lower numbers on top vs. lower numbers on bottom, that kind of thing. All I can say is, I'm glad Karlin's team rejected the proposed "QWERTY" keypad (or, more accurately, "KWERTY"), which would have had the top row go 5-9-3 and placed the "star" key (which even then nobody had a use for) where the seven is today. Rest in Peace, Mr. Karlin. To hear a eulogy, please press the pound key or remain on the line.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
More Great Moments in Management
So this happened:
SOLIPSIST'S LACKEY (a different one): Can you come help someone in the computer lab?
SOLIPSIST: Doubtful. What's wrong?
SL: This woman can't get her floppy disk out of the computer.
S: Wow. Old school!
SL: Yeah.
S: Well, I can take a look, but if the disk is stuck in the machine, I don't know that I'll be able to get it out.
(We go into the computer lab. SL points out the computer. I go over. The student, a middle-aged woman is standing next to it, looking distraught.)
S (to student): Your disk is stuck?
STUDENT: Yes!
(I look at the computer and see the eject button is already pushed in.)
S: Oy. I think this is going to be a problem. (I push the button, just in case. No disk pops out.) Yeah, I don't know what to do about this. We're probably going to need a techie to come in and crack the tower open.
SL: Yeah, I even tried ejecting it through the desktop. . . .
S: I don't think that would work with a floppy disk, anyway.
STUDENT: Oh no!
SL: Right, but it's weird because the computer isn't even reading the disk.
S: Is it not formatted?
STUDENT: All my work's on the disk.
S: You don't have it backed up somewhere?
STUDENT: No.
(I kneel down to look more closely at the disk drive: Maybe there's something obvious that's keeping the disk from popping out. I look into the drive itself.)
S: God. . . .I can't even see the disk. . .
STUDENT: (Handing me a floppy disk.) Here.
S: I don't need another disk. . . . I'm trying to get your disk out.
STUDENT: No, this IS my disk.
S: What?
SL: What?
S: Um. . . .I don't-- THIS is the disk that you can't get out of the computer?
STUDENT: Yes.
S: OUT. OF. The computer?
STUDENT: Yes.
SL (to student): SERIOUSLY?!?
S: Can I see that disk?
STUDENT: Here.
S: So you want this OUT OF the computer?
STUDENT: Yes.
S: OK. (Handing disk back.) Here you go.
And yet, if I'm sarcastic, I'M the jerk!
SOLIPSIST'S LACKEY (a different one): Can you come help someone in the computer lab?
SOLIPSIST: Doubtful. What's wrong?
SL: This woman can't get her floppy disk out of the computer.
S: Wow. Old school!
SL: Yeah.
S: Well, I can take a look, but if the disk is stuck in the machine, I don't know that I'll be able to get it out.
(We go into the computer lab. SL points out the computer. I go over. The student, a middle-aged woman is standing next to it, looking distraught.)
S (to student): Your disk is stuck?
STUDENT: Yes!
(I look at the computer and see the eject button is already pushed in.)
S: Oy. I think this is going to be a problem. (I push the button, just in case. No disk pops out.) Yeah, I don't know what to do about this. We're probably going to need a techie to come in and crack the tower open.
SL: Yeah, I even tried ejecting it through the desktop. . . .
S: I don't think that would work with a floppy disk, anyway.
STUDENT: Oh no!
SL: Right, but it's weird because the computer isn't even reading the disk.
S: Is it not formatted?
STUDENT: All my work's on the disk.
S: You don't have it backed up somewhere?
STUDENT: No.
(I kneel down to look more closely at the disk drive: Maybe there's something obvious that's keeping the disk from popping out. I look into the drive itself.)
S: God. . . .I can't even see the disk. . .
STUDENT: (Handing me a floppy disk.) Here.
S: I don't need another disk. . . . I'm trying to get your disk out.
STUDENT: No, this IS my disk.
S: What?
SL: What?
S: Um. . . .I don't-- THIS is the disk that you can't get out of the computer?
STUDENT: Yes.
S: OUT. OF. The computer?
STUDENT: Yes.
SL (to student): SERIOUSLY?!?
S: Can I see that disk?
STUDENT: Here.
S: So you want this OUT OF the computer?
STUDENT: Yes.
S: OK. (Handing disk back.) Here you go.
And yet, if I'm sarcastic, I'M the jerk!
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
"Help Desk"--You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means
My college has been going through some technological "upgrades" recently. What follows is from an e-mail that staff received the other morning. Please note: Previously, to reach the IT Help Desk, one simply had to pick up any phone and dial 1234:
Good morning,So, the phone number went from 1234 to 16888--well, 816888, to be exact. This, in California, is what passes for progress these days.
Last night the District Office was successfully converted to the new phone system, therefore, if you are contacting personnel here at the District Office from another site please dial “8” then the new 5-digit extension of the person. . . .
The District IT helpdesk is now at the new extension 16888. As always if you have questions please let me know.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Important Changes to The Solipsist
A piece by Susan Crawford in today's Times, discusses the "digital divide" separating those with adequate (i.e., home) access to the internet from the great unwashed who must make do with slower (if cooler) access through smartphones. This is a disturbing topic. It suggests that some of my devoted followers may not have a fully optimized Solipsist experience. Not to worry, though; until the federal government does something to remedy this appalling situation, Your-Not-So-Humble-Correspondent is looking out for you. To make things easier for those of you with slower connections, I will henceforth type much slower. You're welcome.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Apple and the Art of Motorcycle Obsolescence
According to Frederick Seidel, if I didn't have an iPad, I'd be Easy Rider. In his article in today's Times, Seidel explains that, in his day, young men dreamt of riding off on an Italian import--whether a brand new Ducati sport bike or Sophia Loren mattered little. Now, however, the era of the shiny handheld object may spell an end to the era of the shiny straddled object.
I'm not sure I accept his thesis. Certainly, iPads, iPods, and iPhones have iSwept the iWorld and evoke feelings of sublimated lust in the hearts of many a young man (and woman, and not-so-young technophiles of both sexes). But there's a certain non-sequitur quality to Seidel's logic, which, if I understand it correctly, Jane Austen might have paraphrased as, "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man, not in possession of a motorcycle, must be in want of an Apple gadget."
Personally, if I had to exchange my iPad for any Italian import, I'd go with Marisa Tomei--or, heck, even Sophia Loren. Who needs motorcycles?
I'm not sure I accept his thesis. Certainly, iPads, iPods, and iPhones have iSwept the iWorld and evoke feelings of sublimated lust in the hearts of many a young man (and woman, and not-so-young technophiles of both sexes). But there's a certain non-sequitur quality to Seidel's logic, which, if I understand it correctly, Jane Austen might have paraphrased as, "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man, not in possession of a motorcycle, must be in want of an Apple gadget."
Personally, if I had to exchange my iPad for any Italian import, I'd go with Marisa Tomei--or, heck, even Sophia Loren. Who needs motorcycles?
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
A Couple of Random Thoughts for Wednesday
While he has virtually no chance of securing the Republican nomination and less chance of winning the presidency, we are confused by even the minimal enthusiasm Herman Cain's campaign has generated. His supporter seems to base this enthusiasm on Cain's business success. But how impressed can anyone be with his business acumen when he couldn't even beat out his business competitors--and these competitors included Domino's!
*************************
Something you don't want to hear from your computer tech-guy:
"Wow. I've never seen THAT before!"
*************************
Something you don't want to hear from your computer tech-guy:
"Wow. I've never seen THAT before!"
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Money Spent Unwell
In today's news-that-should-come-as-a-surprise-to-no-one, we read that an Arizona school district has discovered that lavish spending on technological frippery does not translate automatically into higher test scores. Next thing you know, Arizonans will figure out that desert living makes you thirsty!
Why do people persist in considering technology the answer to all our nation's educational woes? Wishful thinking, we suppose. After all, software programs don't unionize (unless those "Terminator" movies were right). And presumably, in the long run, educational software is cheaper than flesh-and-blood teachers. Except when you have to make upgrades. Never mind.
The truly infuriating thing is that, while this Arizona district--and presumably similar districts across the country--are seeking millions of taxpayer dollars to ensure a steady supply of iPad apps, teachers whose salaries range from the low to mid-five figures, must take on second jobs at strip malls to make ends meet and pay out of their own pockets for less flashy classroom equipment--like pencils and paper.
Maybe if the money spent on the latest edu-craze went instead to improving teachers' quality of life--enabling them, for example, to spend the time on students that they currently devote to menial second jobs--maybe this would actually result in concrete improvement to those all-important test scores everybody keeps fretting over.
The raw materials of our students' success are already in the classroom, and they are flesh-and-blood, not silicon and code.
Why do people persist in considering technology the answer to all our nation's educational woes? Wishful thinking, we suppose. After all, software programs don't unionize (unless those "Terminator" movies were right). And presumably, in the long run, educational software is cheaper than flesh-and-blood teachers. Except when you have to make upgrades. Never mind.
The truly infuriating thing is that, while this Arizona district--and presumably similar districts across the country--are seeking millions of taxpayer dollars to ensure a steady supply of iPad apps, teachers whose salaries range from the low to mid-five figures, must take on second jobs at strip malls to make ends meet and pay out of their own pockets for less flashy classroom equipment--like pencils and paper.
Maybe if the money spent on the latest edu-craze went instead to improving teachers' quality of life--enabling them, for example, to spend the time on students that they currently devote to menial second jobs--maybe this would actually result in concrete improvement to those all-important test scores everybody keeps fretting over.
The raw materials of our students' success are already in the classroom, and they are flesh-and-blood, not silicon and code.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Book 'Em
What do Doris Lessing, Joyce Carol Oates, and Sarah Palin have in common? If you said plantar fasciitis, you're only half-right! In fact, they are all mentioned in the same sentence in an article in today's paper. And they're all published by HarperCollins. Which may mean three things in common, depending on how you count. Or only one since we made up the whole plantar fasciitis thing. Anyway, the point is that HarperCollins has begun restricting the way libraries can use e-books.
In the past, when a library would purchase a book (or "book") , the library was free to do all manner of strange and wonderful things with said book: They could boil it; they could use it as sporting equipment; they could even do something called "lending." "Lending" was a ritualized activity, wherein a member of the general public would come to the library, look fruitlessly for a book he wanted, decide to take something else out for the hell of it, wait seven to 94 minutes in a line, and then be allowed by a sharp-faced guardian of literature (unless he were fortunate enough to encounter the rare Tina-Fey-Sexy-Librarian type) to take the book home for anywhere from a week to ten years. (Of course, such longer periods of "borrowing" were discouraged by ever-increasing fines, the largest of which are believed by many to be a culprit in this country's recent foreclosure crisis.) These books were seldom actually read, but clients received a sort of osmotic sense of enrichment simply by toting an armful of them around.
Now, however, with the advent of e-books, one doesn't need actually to cross the lion-guarded threshold of one's local library to borrow books; one can simply download reading material directly to one's e-reader (unless, apparently, it's a Kindle--not sure what that's all about). The books will remain on the reader for the allotted lending period, after which they will simply disappear.
When a publisher sells an e-book to a library, the publisher understands the library will lend the book out. Until now, publishers have treated e-books the same as physical books: When a library buys an e-book, the library owns the book. HarperCollins, though, has instituted a policy whereby e-books disappear from the library's collection after being lent out 26 times--after which the library must buy another copy if it wishes to continue lending it.
The publisher fears it will lose money if it does not engage in such skullduggery. We fail to see how, aside from losing the money libraries would pay to replace lost or damaged physical copies. Indeed, we imagine libararies will lose money by lending e-books. Not only will they be unable to hold as many fundraising book sales, as was noted in the article; they will also, we imagine, be unable to charge late fees. Which, as mentioned above, may run into the billions of dollars.
Now, we know Tea Partiers and Wisconsin politicians will take great pleasure in the thought of fatcat librarians being stripped of their lavish lifestyles, generated on the backs of hard-working, blue-collar late-fee-slaves. But we feel that libraries, although obviously overfunded, are worthwhile institutions. Publishers should thank libraries for the part they play in the uphill battle to promote literacy, not force them to pay (and pay and pay again) for materials they have already bought.
Solipsistography
"Publisher Limits Shelf Life for Library E-Books"
In the past, when a library would purchase a book (or "book") , the library was free to do all manner of strange and wonderful things with said book: They could boil it; they could use it as sporting equipment; they could even do something called "lending." "Lending" was a ritualized activity, wherein a member of the general public would come to the library, look fruitlessly for a book he wanted, decide to take something else out for the hell of it, wait seven to 94 minutes in a line, and then be allowed by a sharp-faced guardian of literature (unless he were fortunate enough to encounter the rare Tina-Fey-Sexy-Librarian type) to take the book home for anywhere from a week to ten years. (Of course, such longer periods of "borrowing" were discouraged by ever-increasing fines, the largest of which are believed by many to be a culprit in this country's recent foreclosure crisis.) These books were seldom actually read, but clients received a sort of osmotic sense of enrichment simply by toting an armful of them around.
Now, however, with the advent of e-books, one doesn't need actually to cross the lion-guarded threshold of one's local library to borrow books; one can simply download reading material directly to one's e-reader (unless, apparently, it's a Kindle--not sure what that's all about). The books will remain on the reader for the allotted lending period, after which they will simply disappear.
When a publisher sells an e-book to a library, the publisher understands the library will lend the book out. Until now, publishers have treated e-books the same as physical books: When a library buys an e-book, the library owns the book. HarperCollins, though, has instituted a policy whereby e-books disappear from the library's collection after being lent out 26 times--after which the library must buy another copy if it wishes to continue lending it.
The publisher fears it will lose money if it does not engage in such skullduggery. We fail to see how, aside from losing the money libraries would pay to replace lost or damaged physical copies. Indeed, we imagine libararies will lose money by lending e-books. Not only will they be unable to hold as many fundraising book sales, as was noted in the article; they will also, we imagine, be unable to charge late fees. Which, as mentioned above, may run into the billions of dollars.
Now, we know Tea Partiers and Wisconsin politicians will take great pleasure in the thought of fatcat librarians being stripped of their lavish lifestyles, generated on the backs of hard-working, blue-collar late-fee-slaves. But we feel that libraries, although obviously overfunded, are worthwhile institutions. Publishers should thank libraries for the part they play in the uphill battle to promote literacy, not force them to pay (and pay and pay again) for materials they have already bought.
Solipsistography
"Publisher Limits Shelf Life for Library E-Books"
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Bundles of Joy
And by "joy," we mean the polar opposite of joy. Now THAT's sarcasm!
A few weeks ago, frustrated by our perpetually slow internet service at Solipsist HQ, we broke down and signed up for a communications "bundle" from a major communications company that shall remain nameless AT&T. We opted for the "U-verse" package, which included high-speed internet, cable TV, and phone service, all for a reasonable monthly price just slightly lower than the gross national product of Luxembourg. What a bargain! All was going along swimmingly until yesterday when, for no apparent reason, our cable went out. One minute WOS was happily watching reruns of "The Golden Girls" (or whatever), the next--nothing!
Annoying, right? But here's the thing: Now that we were "bundled," we didn't just lose our cable--we lost our internet. And our phone. Solipsist HQ had suddenly become 1800's house.
Well, thanks be to the deity for cell phones: WOS called AT&T and they promised to send someone over immediately. Now, the threat of a maintenance man coming over had the desired effect: Everything suddenly started working again! Until the maintenance man showed up! Yes, folks, as soon as he came over, he informed us that he had checked our lines and there was a problem. Not a problem that prevented things from WORKING, though, so the maintenance guy obviously shut us down out of spite. Not to worry, though, someone would be out by the end of the day to fix our lines--this being an "external" problem that first guy was unqualified to fix.
We waited.
We called.
We waited.
We were assured.
We waited.
We were reassured.
We watched the entire SciFi miniseries "The Lost Room," which we happened to have from Netflix (not bad, incidentally).
This morning, the "external" guy showed up. He fixed everything! Everything, that is, except our cable, phone, and internet. For this, we were told, we would need another "internal" repair call. But BOY do our external lines look great!
We were assured that internal guy #2 would come between 12:00 and 4:00. Around 3:45, the Solipsist got a call on his cell phone (why the call came on HIS phone, when AT&T had been calling WOS on her phone all day is a mystery best left to tje sages). The caller, "Monique," left a message saying she was about ten minutes away and she was hoping that somebody would be there to let her in. Now, we knew that WOS was there to let "Monique" in, so we didn't call her back. We went home for a bite to eat around 4:00. We got home around 4:20. No "Monique." We called "Monique" and got her voice mail. Just checking to see what's going on. . . . Heh. . . Hope to see you soon. . . .
Nothing.
Around 4:45, we had to leave to come back to work for our evening class, but we figured we'd try "Monique" one last time. She answered! "Hey, this is the Solipsist. Uh. . . Are you going to be here soon?"
"Oh, I WAS there, but I wasn't able to get in."
"What?!?"
"Yeah, there's a gate, so I can't come in without permission."
"But the gate was open!"
"I know, but LEGALLY I can't come in without permission."
"Well, why didn't you CALL?"
"I did! I called and said I would be there in ten minutes. You didn't call me back!"
"YOU DIDN'T SAY WE HAD TO CALL YOU BACK!"
"Well, I said 'I hope someone's there to let me in.'"
"SOMEBODY WAS HERE TO LET YOU IN! WOS WAS HERE TO LET YOU IN!"
"Well, I waited out front for fifteen minutes, and nobody called me back!"
"Um. . . So, while you were 'waiting out front for fifteen minutes,' it didn't occur to you, maybe, to try calling again?"
"Well, I guess that would have been a good idea, seeing as how you're angry about this."
"YA THINK?!?"
It's OK, though, Nation. She said that she would come right over. We told her that she HAD PERMISSION to enter. We also told her that we wouldn't be there, but our wife would. The funny thing is that, when she heard she wouldn't be dealing with us, SHE probably thought she was getting off easy.
We just hope WOS doesn't hurt her too badly.
A few weeks ago, frustrated by our perpetually slow internet service at Solipsist HQ, we broke down and signed up for a communications "bundle" from a major communications company that shall remain nameless AT&T. We opted for the "U-verse" package, which included high-speed internet, cable TV, and phone service, all for a reasonable monthly price just slightly lower than the gross national product of Luxembourg. What a bargain! All was going along swimmingly until yesterday when, for no apparent reason, our cable went out. One minute WOS was happily watching reruns of "The Golden Girls" (or whatever), the next--nothing!
Annoying, right? But here's the thing: Now that we were "bundled," we didn't just lose our cable--we lost our internet. And our phone. Solipsist HQ had suddenly become 1800's house.
Well, thanks be to the deity for cell phones: WOS called AT&T and they promised to send someone over immediately. Now, the threat of a maintenance man coming over had the desired effect: Everything suddenly started working again! Until the maintenance man showed up! Yes, folks, as soon as he came over, he informed us that he had checked our lines and there was a problem. Not a problem that prevented things from WORKING, though, so the maintenance guy obviously shut us down out of spite. Not to worry, though, someone would be out by the end of the day to fix our lines--this being an "external" problem that first guy was unqualified to fix.
We waited.
We called.
We waited.
We were assured.
We waited.
We were reassured.
We watched the entire SciFi miniseries "The Lost Room," which we happened to have from Netflix (not bad, incidentally).
This morning, the "external" guy showed up. He fixed everything! Everything, that is, except our cable, phone, and internet. For this, we were told, we would need another "internal" repair call. But BOY do our external lines look great!
We were assured that internal guy #2 would come between 12:00 and 4:00. Around 3:45, the Solipsist got a call on his cell phone (why the call came on HIS phone, when AT&T had been calling WOS on her phone all day is a mystery best left to tje sages). The caller, "Monique," left a message saying she was about ten minutes away and she was hoping that somebody would be there to let her in. Now, we knew that WOS was there to let "Monique" in, so we didn't call her back. We went home for a bite to eat around 4:00. We got home around 4:20. No "Monique." We called "Monique" and got her voice mail. Just checking to see what's going on. . . . Heh. . . Hope to see you soon. . . .
Nothing.
Around 4:45, we had to leave to come back to work for our evening class, but we figured we'd try "Monique" one last time. She answered! "Hey, this is the Solipsist. Uh. . . Are you going to be here soon?"
"Oh, I WAS there, but I wasn't able to get in."
"What?!?"
"Yeah, there's a gate, so I can't come in without permission."
"But the gate was open!"
"I know, but LEGALLY I can't come in without permission."
"Well, why didn't you CALL?"
"I did! I called and said I would be there in ten minutes. You didn't call me back!"
"YOU DIDN'T SAY WE HAD TO CALL YOU BACK!"
"Well, I said 'I hope someone's there to let me in.'"
"SOMEBODY WAS HERE TO LET YOU IN! WOS WAS HERE TO LET YOU IN!"
"Well, I waited out front for fifteen minutes, and nobody called me back!"
"Um. . . So, while you were 'waiting out front for fifteen minutes,' it didn't occur to you, maybe, to try calling again?"
"Well, I guess that would have been a good idea, seeing as how you're angry about this."
"YA THINK?!?"
It's OK, though, Nation. She said that she would come right over. We told her that she HAD PERMISSION to enter. We also told her that we wouldn't be there, but our wife would. The funny thing is that, when she heard she wouldn't be dealing with us, SHE probably thought she was getting off easy.
We just hope WOS doesn't hurt her too badly.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Jobs Flees Apple Amid Growing Unrest--A Solipsist Exclusive
SAN FRANCISCO--Citing "health" issues, Steve Jobs, President-for-Life of Appleland, fled corporate headquarters yesterday. His destination is unclear, although he is rumored to have been granted asylum in neighboring Googlevania. Jobs' prime-minister, Timothy Cook, has assumed control of the government, in what outraged protesters are calling an unconstitutional power grab.
Jobs has struggled to project an air of business-as-usual despite increasing protests about his authoritarian style and seeming indifference to the plight of his subjects. The anti-Jobs movement began late last year, after Woody McFarland of Columbus, Ohio, set himself on fire outside a local Apple store. McFarland was driven to his desperate act by frustration with the poor iPhone service he received from AT&T. Since then, dissident mobs have marched regularly on Apple headquarters, wearing "What Would Woody Want" t-shirts and frequently burning iPhones in effigy and themselves in not-effigy.
In an attempt to pacify protesters, Jobs announced that Apple would begin offering iPhone service on Verizon. While the announcement was welcomed, spokesmen for the Rotten Apple Party claimed the action was "too little too late."
"Jobs and his cronies have held us hostage for too long," said opposition leader Bill "No Relation" Gates. "Yes, Apple products are cool. But why do we have to buy an iPhone and an iPad? Shouldn't we at least get a discount? And why doesn't the iPad have a camera?"
RAP is demanding that Cook hold free and fair elections within the next six months. "We will continue to set ourselves on fire until our demands are met."
Analysts speculate that, if its customers continue to self-immolate, Appleland can survive for two more years at most. The United Nations will debate sending in peacekeepers at a special emergency session later this week.
Solipsistography:
Friday, December 17, 2010
Coolest Thing EVER
Nobody talked much about solipsists before the late-19th century. OK, presumably we were talking about ourselves, but we didn't get much play in the wider world. The highwater mark of solipsism's literary popularity apparently came in 1996: In that year, about 1/20,000 of one percent of the words used in books was "solipsism." Why this sudden popularity? Could it have something to do with America's highly popular, solipsistic commander-in-chief? (OK, Clinton was technically more of a narcissist, but there's a definite relationship?) And what explains the fact that, while "solipsism" trended up, "solipsist" trended down? A sign of people's preference for abstraction over individuals?
We can muse upon these questions thanks to Google's new "Books Ngram Viewer." Basically, this tool allows you to search through thousands upon thousands of digitized texts to see how often words or short phrases appear. It's a sort of concordance for the electronic age. ("Concordance," incidentally, has had a sort of up-and-down history. Its usage spikes around 1670 and then again about a hundred years later, before dipping into a trough from which it arose again around 1970. It had maintained its status since then--no stopping "concordance" now.)
Another fun fact: a little under 5% of the words used in Google's sample are the word "the." If we read this correctly, this means that if one reads twenty words, there's a good chance that one of those words is "the." Also, this 5% total (which is pretty huge if you think about it) is down from a high of about 6% in the mid-19th century. Why has "the" fallen into disfavor over the last 150 years? And why has the fall-off been less drastic in British books than in American? (Yup, you can look at that, too.)
We prefer Pepsi to Coke, but the latter is about 15 times more common than the former. And since 1977, when "Star Wars" hit theaters, the movie has been a steady topic--or, maybe not: The phrase reached its zenith in the late 1980s, when it occurs once every million words or so, but we suspect that may have something to do with President Reagan's plans for missile defense. As of 2008, though, the phrase was only slightly more common than "Star Trek"--and the latter doesn't even have geopolitical implications. (Also, "Star Wars" is more popular than "Star Trek" in French literature, but the numbers are reversed for Germans. Discuss.)
We can muse upon these questions thanks to Google's new "Books Ngram Viewer." Basically, this tool allows you to search through thousands upon thousands of digitized texts to see how often words or short phrases appear. It's a sort of concordance for the electronic age. ("Concordance," incidentally, has had a sort of up-and-down history. Its usage spikes around 1670 and then again about a hundred years later, before dipping into a trough from which it arose again around 1970. It had maintained its status since then--no stopping "concordance" now.)
Another fun fact: a little under 5% of the words used in Google's sample are the word "the." If we read this correctly, this means that if one reads twenty words, there's a good chance that one of those words is "the." Also, this 5% total (which is pretty huge if you think about it) is down from a high of about 6% in the mid-19th century. Why has "the" fallen into disfavor over the last 150 years? And why has the fall-off been less drastic in British books than in American? (Yup, you can look at that, too.)
We prefer Pepsi to Coke, but the latter is about 15 times more common than the former. And since 1977, when "Star Wars" hit theaters, the movie has been a steady topic--or, maybe not: The phrase reached its zenith in the late 1980s, when it occurs once every million words or so, but we suspect that may have something to do with President Reagan's plans for missile defense. As of 2008, though, the phrase was only slightly more common than "Star Trek"--and the latter doesn't even have geopolitical implications. (Also, "Star Wars" is more popular than "Star Trek" in French literature, but the numbers are reversed for Germans. Discuss.)
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Technology Makes Our Lives Easier
This, with only slight exaggeration, has been our day:
Our office is located in a resource center at a community college--the place where students come to use computers, receive tutoring, and generally make the Solipsist's life miserable. This morning, the gentleman who manages the resource center was running late, which meant we were responsible for fixing any minor technical glitches that might arise. Thus, before we had even had a chance to sip our life-giving coffee, one of our tutors--a tutor!--came into our office with a problem.
"Solipsist, the copier isn't turned on."
"OK, it's not work-- Wait, what?"
"The copier isn't turned on."
"Um, OK."
"So, should I turn it on?"
"That sounds like a good idea."
"I just wanted to make sure. . . ."
"OK."
"I just don't want to break the printer."
"'Break the. . .'? How would you-- Do you want us to turn the printer on for you?"
"Well, I don't want to put you out."
"No, no! It would be our pleasure! Don't trouble yourself at all!"
We turned on the printer, at which point we were accosted by an instructor who had brought her class to use a computer classroom.
"Can you help me get started?"
"Umm. . .Sure." We went into the computer lab. "What seems to be the problem?
"I need to use an ESL program on the computer."
"OK. Do you know which program?"
"Yes, but I don't see it."
"That's because you haven't turned the computer on."
"Oh." We turned the computer on for her.
"OK, now, how do I run the program?"
"Do you know the name of the program?"
"Yes. It's ________."
"This one?"we asked, pointing at an icon.
"Yes."
"Click it."
She managed to click the icon and open the program without too much additional difficulty. Then. however, she became troubled. "But the students don't have headphones."
"Do they need headphones?"
"Well, I want to show them a video."
"OK. On the big screen at the front of the room?"
"Yes."
"There are speakers for that screen. They don't need headphones."
"They don't?"
"They don't."
"How will they be able to hear the sound?"
"Do you have a television at home?"
"What?"
"A television. Do you have one?"
"Yes."
"Do you need to wear headphones to hear it?"
"What?"
Urge to kill. . . rising. "Can you hear the noises coming out of the picture box without headphones."
"Yes."
"OK. Same principle here."
We left before we screamed, but, as we left the computer lab, a student came up to us. "Excuse me, Mr. . .Solenoid?"
"Close enough."
"I think the copier's broken."
"Hmm. . . . Why do we have a feeling it hasn't been turned on yet?"
"What?"
"Nothing." We turned the copier on. As we turned around, we came face to face with the aforementioned instructor." "ACK!"
"There's no sound coming out!"
"Really?" This actually sounded like an honest-to-God glitch! We went back into the computer lab. We went over to the volume control and cranked it to 11. Nothing. We were stymied. Then we looked at the instructor's computer. "Ummm. . . .What is it you're expecting to hear?"
"This video!"
"The one on the screen?"
"Yes!"
"The one that says, 'Press "Play" to begin'?"
"Yes!"
"Here's a thought--PRESS PLAY!"
"'Play'?"
"Look, you know how you play a CD?"
"C. . .D?"
"8-track?"
"Oh, like a phonograph?"
"Exactly!"
Before we could make it back to our office and our rapidly cooling coffee, ANOTHER student grabbed us. "Mr. Solemnist?"
"Mrrrrrm?"
"I forgot my password for this program I'm supposed to use. Can you reset it for me?"
"Of course! It would be our pleasure!" We reset the lady's password and explained that, when she logged back in, she should leave the password field blank. She would then be asked to create a new password.
After scanning the area for additional interruptions and seeing none, we hurried back to the office, took a long pull of coffee and began to settle our nerves for the day ahead. A good ten minutes--TEN MINUTES--later, Password Girl came to our door. "It's still not working."
"It isn't?"
"It keeps asking me for a Password."
"Did you create a new password?"
"Create?"
"It's asking you to create a password. . . .To choose a password that you will use to access the program."
"Oh. So I need to create a password."
"Yes."
"Oh. . . . How do I do that?"
"You. . . You just. . . You choose. . . . Y'know what? CAT! Your password is CAT. Write it down! Tattoo it to the inside of your eyelid! Repeat it over and over and over again as you fall asleep and wake up every morning yelling 'CAT!' at the top of your lungs!"
"And. . . how do you spell that?"
Our office is located in a resource center at a community college--the place where students come to use computers, receive tutoring, and generally make the Solipsist's life miserable. This morning, the gentleman who manages the resource center was running late, which meant we were responsible for fixing any minor technical glitches that might arise. Thus, before we had even had a chance to sip our life-giving coffee, one of our tutors--a tutor!--came into our office with a problem.
"Solipsist, the copier isn't turned on."
"OK, it's not work-- Wait, what?"
"The copier isn't turned on."
"Um, OK."
"So, should I turn it on?"
"That sounds like a good idea."
"I just wanted to make sure. . . ."
"OK."
"I just don't want to break the printer."
"'Break the. . .'? How would you-- Do you want us to turn the printer on for you?"
"Well, I don't want to put you out."
"No, no! It would be our pleasure! Don't trouble yourself at all!"
We turned on the printer, at which point we were accosted by an instructor who had brought her class to use a computer classroom.
"Can you help me get started?"
"Umm. . .Sure." We went into the computer lab. "What seems to be the problem?
"I need to use an ESL program on the computer."
"OK. Do you know which program?"
"Yes, but I don't see it."
"That's because you haven't turned the computer on."
"Oh." We turned the computer on for her.
"OK, now, how do I run the program?"
"Do you know the name of the program?"
"Yes. It's ________."
"This one?"we asked, pointing at an icon.
"Yes."
"Click it."
She managed to click the icon and open the program without too much additional difficulty. Then. however, she became troubled. "But the students don't have headphones."
"Do they need headphones?"
"Well, I want to show them a video."
"OK. On the big screen at the front of the room?"
"Yes."
"There are speakers for that screen. They don't need headphones."
"They don't?"
"They don't."
"How will they be able to hear the sound?"
"Do you have a television at home?"
"What?"
"A television. Do you have one?"
"Yes."
"Do you need to wear headphones to hear it?"
"What?"
Urge to kill. . . rising. "Can you hear the noises coming out of the picture box without headphones."
"Yes."
"OK. Same principle here."
We left before we screamed, but, as we left the computer lab, a student came up to us. "Excuse me, Mr. . .Solenoid?"
"Close enough."
"I think the copier's broken."
"Hmm. . . . Why do we have a feeling it hasn't been turned on yet?"
"What?"
"Nothing." We turned the copier on. As we turned around, we came face to face with the aforementioned instructor." "ACK!"
"There's no sound coming out!"
"Really?" This actually sounded like an honest-to-God glitch! We went back into the computer lab. We went over to the volume control and cranked it to 11. Nothing. We were stymied. Then we looked at the instructor's computer. "Ummm. . . .What is it you're expecting to hear?"
"This video!"
"The one on the screen?"
"Yes!"
"The one that says, 'Press "Play" to begin'?"
"Yes!"
"Here's a thought--PRESS PLAY!"
"'Play'?"
"Look, you know how you play a CD?"
"C. . .D?"
"8-track?"
"Oh, like a phonograph?"
"Exactly!"
Before we could make it back to our office and our rapidly cooling coffee, ANOTHER student grabbed us. "Mr. Solemnist?"
"Mrrrrrm?"
"I forgot my password for this program I'm supposed to use. Can you reset it for me?"
"Of course! It would be our pleasure!" We reset the lady's password and explained that, when she logged back in, she should leave the password field blank. She would then be asked to create a new password.
After scanning the area for additional interruptions and seeing none, we hurried back to the office, took a long pull of coffee and began to settle our nerves for the day ahead. A good ten minutes--TEN MINUTES--later, Password Girl came to our door. "It's still not working."
"It isn't?"
"It keeps asking me for a Password."
"Did you create a new password?"
"Create?"
"It's asking you to create a password. . . .To choose a password that you will use to access the program."
"Oh. So I need to create a password."
"Yes."
"Oh. . . . How do I do that?"
"You. . . You just. . . You choose. . . . Y'know what? CAT! Your password is CAT. Write it down! Tattoo it to the inside of your eyelid! Repeat it over and over and over again as you fall asleep and wake up every morning yelling 'CAT!' at the top of your lungs!"
"And. . . how do you spell that?"
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
We Can All Haz (Plastic) Cheezburgers!
We're kind of pressed for time today. So just check out this article about 3-D printing.
Architectural models! Toys! Prosthetic limbs! If they had one of these things in the Emerald City, "The Wizard of Oz" would have been a much shorter movie ("You want a brain, Mr. Scarecrow? Just give me a second!").
But could they print the Solipsist up a soul?
Architectural models! Toys! Prosthetic limbs! If they had one of these things in the Emerald City, "The Wizard of Oz" would have been a much shorter movie ("You want a brain, Mr. Scarecrow? Just give me a second!").
But could they print the Solipsist up a soul?
Monday, August 30, 2010
Mystery Science Newspaper 3000--An Annotation
Retargeting Ads Follow Surfers to Other Sites
By MIGUEL HELFT and TANZINA VEGA
Julie Matlin was tempted by a pair of shoes on Zappos.com. Then the shoes started showing up in ads on other sites she visited.
Then the shoes started to follow her everywhere she went online. An ad for those very shoes showed up on the blog TechCrunch. It popped up again on several other blogs and on Twitpic. It was as if Zappos had unleashed a persistent salesman who wouldn’t take no for an answer.
[Now, why didn't we think of this? The Solipsist could follow members of the Nation wherever they go! Offering our own unique take on every website they visit.]
“For days or weeks, every site I went to seemed to be showing me ads for those shoes,” said Ms. Matlin, a mother of two from Montreal. “It is a pretty clever marketing tool. But it’s a little creepy, especially if you don’t know what’s going on.”
[Once you find out what's going on--that you're being stalked by an online shoe retailer--it's not creepy at all.]
People have grown accustomed to being tracked online and shown ads for categories of products they have shown interest in, be it tennis or bank loans.
[Or anti-flatulence medications. Perhaps we've said too much.]
Increasingly, however, the ads tailored to them are for specific products that they have perused online. While the technique, which the ad industry calls personalized retargeting or remarketing, is not new, it is becoming more pervasive as companies like Google and Microsoft have entered the field. And retargeting has reached a level of precision that is leaving consumers with the palpable feeling that they are being watched as they roam the virtual aisles of online stores.
[Especially if they're African-American teenagers! Sorry.]
More retailers like Art.com, B&H Photo, Diapers.com, eBags.com and the Discovery Channel store use these kinds of ads. Nordstrom says it is considering using them, and retargeting is becoming increasingly common with marketers in the travel, real estate and financial services industries. The ads often appear on popular sites like YouTube, Facebook, MySpace or Realtor.com.
[So, would someone please explain to the Solipsist how he keeps seeing ads for Ann Coulter's books on HIS Facebook page? 'Cause we KNOW we never looked into buying any of her products anywhere. Of course, we DID accidentally go to the website of the American Douchebag society, which could explain why we keep getting invited to join the Glenn Beck Fan Club.]
In the digital advertising business, this form of highly personalized marketing is being hailed as the latest breakthrough because it tries to show consumers the right ad at the right time. “The overwhelming response has been positive,” said Aaron Magness, senior director for brand marketing and business development at Zappos, a unit of Amazon.com. The parent company declined to say whether it also uses the ads.
[Because Amazon.com doesn't want us to think they're overly commercialized. "It's about the BOOKS, Man!"]
Others, though, find it disturbing. When a recent Advertising Age column noted the phenomenon, several readers chimed in to voice their displeasure.
Bad as it was to be stalked by shoes, Ms. Matlin said that she felt even worse when she was hounded recently by ads for a dieting service she had used online. “They are still following me around, and it makes me feel fat,” she said.
[Uh, Sweetie, it's not the website that makes you feel fat.]
With more consumers queasy about intrusions into their privacy, the technique is raising anew the threat of industry regulation. “Retargeting has helped turn on a light bulb for consumers,” said Jeff Chester, a privacy advocate and executive director of the Washington-based Center for Digital Democracy. “It illustrates that there is a commercial surveillance system in place online that is sweeping in scope and raises privacy and civil liberties issues, too.”
[First they placed ads for Zappos.com shoes on our Facebook page, and we said nothing, for we do not have feet. Then they placed ads for Newman's Own Salad Dressing, and we said nothing, for we don't like vegetables. Then they placed ads for Farmville, and there was no one left to say anything.]
Retargeting, however, relies on a form of online tracking that has been around for years and is not particularly intrusive. Retargeting programs typically use small text files called cookies that are exchanged when a Web browser visits a site. Cookies are used by virtually all commercial Web sites for various purposes, including advertising, keeping users signed in and customizing content.
[And for pacifying hyperactive blue muppets.]
In remarketing, when a person visits an e-commerce site and looks at say, an Etienne Aigner Athena satchel on eBags.com, a cookie is placed into that person’s browser, linking it with the handbag. When that person, or someone using the same computer, visits another site, the advertising system creates an ad for that very purse.
Mr. Magness, of Zappos, said that consumers may be unnerved because they may feel that they are being tracked from site to site as they browse the Web. To reassure consumers, Zappos, which is using the ads to peddle items like shoes, handbags and women’s underwear, displays a message inside the banner ads that reads, “Why am I seeing these ads?” When users click on it, they are taken to the Web site of Criteo, the advertising technology company behind the Zappos ads, where the ads are explained.
[All fine and good, until you click, "Why am I seeing these ads?" and are told, "Because you are a cross-dressing weirdo."]
While users are given the choice to opt out, few do once they understand how the ads are selected for them, said Jean-Baptiste Rudelle, the chief executive of Criteo.
[Because, basically, people are sheep.]
But some advertising and media experts said that explaining the technology behind the ads might not allay the fears of many consumers who worry about being tracked or who simply fear that someone they share a computer with will see what items they have browsed.
[Which brings us back to that anti-flatulence medication we discussed earlier.]
“When you begin to give people a sense of how this is happening, they really don’t like it,” said Joseph Turow, a professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, who has conducted consumer surveys about online advertising. Professor Turow, who studies digital media and recently testified at a Senate committee hearing on digital advertising, said he had a visceral negative reaction to the ads, even though he understands the technologies behind them.
“It seemed so bold,” Professor Turow said. “I was not pleased, frankly.”
While start-ups like Criteo and TellApart are among the most active remarketers, the technique has also been embraced by online advertising giants.
Google began testing this technique in 2009, calling it remarketing [because "relentless commercial cyber-stalking" didn't test well in focus groups] to connote the idea of customized messages like special offers or discounts being sent to users. In March, the company made the service available to all advertisers on its AdWords network.
For Google, remarketing is a more specific form of behavioral targeting, the practice under which a person who has visited NBA.com, for instance, may be tagged as a basketball fan and later will be shown ads for related merchandise.
[You can get a great deal these days on Lebron James' Cleveland Cavalier underwear.]
Behavioral targeting has been hotly debated in Washington, and lawmakers are considering various proposals to regulate it. During the recent Senate hearing, Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, said she found the technique troubling. “I understand that advertising supports the Internet, but I am a little spooked out,” Ms. McCaskill said of behavioral targeting. “This is creepy.”
[Uh, Senator, we think you mean that you were "creeped out" and that it was "spooky."]
When Advertising Age, the advertising industry publication, tackled the subject of remarketing recently, the writer Michael Learmonth described being stalked by a pair of pants he had considered buying on Zappos.
[Stalked by a pair of pants? Sounds like a good concept for a Troma film. Still, how scary is that really? What are the pants gonna do? Crease you to death?]
“As tracking gets more and more crass and obvious, consumers will rightfully become more concerned about it,” he wrote. “If the industry is truly worried about a federally mandated ‘do not track’ list akin to ‘do not call’ for the Internet, they’re not really showing it.”
Some advertising executives agree that highly personalized remarketing not only goes too far but also is unnecessary.
“I don’t think that exposing all this detailed information you have about the customer is necessary,” said Alan Pearlstein, chief executive of Cross Pixel Media, a digital marketing agency. Mr. Pearlstein says he supports retargeting, but with more subtle ads that, for instance, could offer consumers a discount coupon if they return to an online store. “What is the benefit of freaking customers out?”
[They say there's no such thing as bad publicity. The question is, is there such a thing as bad "freaking out." That is, if a company freaks you out badly enough, will that serve a perverse function in getting you to ultimately patronize said company? We, nonetheless, swear that the Solipsist will never engage in such underhanded methods of self-promotion as placing ads on his followers' websites--at least not until we have figured out the steps to do so.]
By MIGUEL HELFT and TANZINA VEGA
Julie Matlin was tempted by a pair of shoes on Zappos.com. Then the shoes started showing up in ads on other sites she visited.
Then the shoes started to follow her everywhere she went online. An ad for those very shoes showed up on the blog TechCrunch. It popped up again on several other blogs and on Twitpic. It was as if Zappos had unleashed a persistent salesman who wouldn’t take no for an answer.
[Now, why didn't we think of this? The Solipsist could follow members of the Nation wherever they go! Offering our own unique take on every website they visit.]
“For days or weeks, every site I went to seemed to be showing me ads for those shoes,” said Ms. Matlin, a mother of two from Montreal. “It is a pretty clever marketing tool. But it’s a little creepy, especially if you don’t know what’s going on.”
[Once you find out what's going on--that you're being stalked by an online shoe retailer--it's not creepy at all.]
People have grown accustomed to being tracked online and shown ads for categories of products they have shown interest in, be it tennis or bank loans.
[Or anti-flatulence medications. Perhaps we've said too much.]
Increasingly, however, the ads tailored to them are for specific products that they have perused online. While the technique, which the ad industry calls personalized retargeting or remarketing, is not new, it is becoming more pervasive as companies like Google and Microsoft have entered the field. And retargeting has reached a level of precision that is leaving consumers with the palpable feeling that they are being watched as they roam the virtual aisles of online stores.
[Especially if they're African-American teenagers! Sorry.]
More retailers like Art.com, B&H Photo, Diapers.com, eBags.com and the Discovery Channel store use these kinds of ads. Nordstrom says it is considering using them, and retargeting is becoming increasingly common with marketers in the travel, real estate and financial services industries. The ads often appear on popular sites like YouTube, Facebook, MySpace or Realtor.com.
[So, would someone please explain to the Solipsist how he keeps seeing ads for Ann Coulter's books on HIS Facebook page? 'Cause we KNOW we never looked into buying any of her products anywhere. Of course, we DID accidentally go to the website of the American Douchebag society, which could explain why we keep getting invited to join the Glenn Beck Fan Club.]
In the digital advertising business, this form of highly personalized marketing is being hailed as the latest breakthrough because it tries to show consumers the right ad at the right time. “The overwhelming response has been positive,” said Aaron Magness, senior director for brand marketing and business development at Zappos, a unit of Amazon.com. The parent company declined to say whether it also uses the ads.
[Because Amazon.com doesn't want us to think they're overly commercialized. "It's about the BOOKS, Man!"]
Others, though, find it disturbing. When a recent Advertising Age column noted the phenomenon, several readers chimed in to voice their displeasure.
Bad as it was to be stalked by shoes, Ms. Matlin said that she felt even worse when she was hounded recently by ads for a dieting service she had used online. “They are still following me around, and it makes me feel fat,” she said.
[Uh, Sweetie, it's not the website that makes you feel fat.]
With more consumers queasy about intrusions into their privacy, the technique is raising anew the threat of industry regulation. “Retargeting has helped turn on a light bulb for consumers,” said Jeff Chester, a privacy advocate and executive director of the Washington-based Center for Digital Democracy. “It illustrates that there is a commercial surveillance system in place online that is sweeping in scope and raises privacy and civil liberties issues, too.”
[First they placed ads for Zappos.com shoes on our Facebook page, and we said nothing, for we do not have feet. Then they placed ads for Newman's Own Salad Dressing, and we said nothing, for we don't like vegetables. Then they placed ads for Farmville, and there was no one left to say anything.]
Retargeting, however, relies on a form of online tracking that has been around for years and is not particularly intrusive. Retargeting programs typically use small text files called cookies that are exchanged when a Web browser visits a site. Cookies are used by virtually all commercial Web sites for various purposes, including advertising, keeping users signed in and customizing content.
[And for pacifying hyperactive blue muppets.]
In remarketing, when a person visits an e-commerce site and looks at say, an Etienne Aigner Athena satchel on eBags.com, a cookie is placed into that person’s browser, linking it with the handbag. When that person, or someone using the same computer, visits another site, the advertising system creates an ad for that very purse.
Mr. Magness, of Zappos, said that consumers may be unnerved because they may feel that they are being tracked from site to site as they browse the Web. To reassure consumers, Zappos, which is using the ads to peddle items like shoes, handbags and women’s underwear, displays a message inside the banner ads that reads, “Why am I seeing these ads?” When users click on it, they are taken to the Web site of Criteo, the advertising technology company behind the Zappos ads, where the ads are explained.
[All fine and good, until you click, "Why am I seeing these ads?" and are told, "Because you are a cross-dressing weirdo."]
While users are given the choice to opt out, few do once they understand how the ads are selected for them, said Jean-Baptiste Rudelle, the chief executive of Criteo.
[Because, basically, people are sheep.]
But some advertising and media experts said that explaining the technology behind the ads might not allay the fears of many consumers who worry about being tracked or who simply fear that someone they share a computer with will see what items they have browsed.
[Which brings us back to that anti-flatulence medication we discussed earlier.]
“When you begin to give people a sense of how this is happening, they really don’t like it,” said Joseph Turow, a professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, who has conducted consumer surveys about online advertising. Professor Turow, who studies digital media and recently testified at a Senate committee hearing on digital advertising, said he had a visceral negative reaction to the ads, even though he understands the technologies behind them.
“It seemed so bold,” Professor Turow said. “I was not pleased, frankly.”
While start-ups like Criteo and TellApart are among the most active remarketers, the technique has also been embraced by online advertising giants.
Google began testing this technique in 2009, calling it remarketing [because "relentless commercial cyber-stalking" didn't test well in focus groups] to connote the idea of customized messages like special offers or discounts being sent to users. In March, the company made the service available to all advertisers on its AdWords network.
For Google, remarketing is a more specific form of behavioral targeting, the practice under which a person who has visited NBA.com, for instance, may be tagged as a basketball fan and later will be shown ads for related merchandise.
[You can get a great deal these days on Lebron James' Cleveland Cavalier underwear.]
Behavioral targeting has been hotly debated in Washington, and lawmakers are considering various proposals to regulate it. During the recent Senate hearing, Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, said she found the technique troubling. “I understand that advertising supports the Internet, but I am a little spooked out,” Ms. McCaskill said of behavioral targeting. “This is creepy.”
[Uh, Senator, we think you mean that you were "creeped out" and that it was "spooky."]
When Advertising Age, the advertising industry publication, tackled the subject of remarketing recently, the writer Michael Learmonth described being stalked by a pair of pants he had considered buying on Zappos.
[Stalked by a pair of pants? Sounds like a good concept for a Troma film. Still, how scary is that really? What are the pants gonna do? Crease you to death?]
“As tracking gets more and more crass and obvious, consumers will rightfully become more concerned about it,” he wrote. “If the industry is truly worried about a federally mandated ‘do not track’ list akin to ‘do not call’ for the Internet, they’re not really showing it.”
Some advertising executives agree that highly personalized remarketing not only goes too far but also is unnecessary.
“I don’t think that exposing all this detailed information you have about the customer is necessary,” said Alan Pearlstein, chief executive of Cross Pixel Media, a digital marketing agency. Mr. Pearlstein says he supports retargeting, but with more subtle ads that, for instance, could offer consumers a discount coupon if they return to an online store. “What is the benefit of freaking customers out?”
[They say there's no such thing as bad publicity. The question is, is there such a thing as bad "freaking out." That is, if a company freaks you out badly enough, will that serve a perverse function in getting you to ultimately patronize said company? We, nonetheless, swear that the Solipsist will never engage in such underhanded methods of self-promotion as placing ads on his followers' websites--at least not until we have figured out the steps to do so.]
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Independence (A Short Play)
"In the general scheme of life, parents are the ones who keep tabs on the children. But now, a raft of new technology is making it possible for adult children to monitor to a stunningly precise degree the daily movements and habits of their aging parents.
The purpose is to provide enough supervision to make it possible for elderly people to stay in their homes rather than move to an assisted-living facility or nursing home — a goal almost universally embraced as both emotionally and financially desirable. With that in mind, a vast spectrum of companies, from giants like General Electric to start-ups like iReminder of Westfield, N.J., which has developed a system to notify families if loved ones haven’t taken their medicine, are looking for a piece of the market of families with an aging relative."
--"Technologies Help Adult Children Monitor Aging Parents"
[A New York apartment. 7:12 a.m. A woman, Mother of Solipsist, is sleeping. A phone rings.]
MOTHER OF SOLIPSIST (Answering phone, waking up, groggy): . . . 'lo?
SOLIPSIST (On phone): MOM! MOM! Are you OK?
MOS: What? Yes, why. . .what's wrong?
SOL: IT'S 7:12!!!!
MOS: OK. . . So?
SOL: So you're always up by seven! Seven-o-five at the latest! What's wrong?
MOS: I decided to sleep a little late! Is that OK?
SOL: Ohhhh. . . Heh . . . OK, sorry. . . .So. . . How's things?
(MOS hangs up.)
(Empty bedroom. A few hours later. Phone rings. No one answers. An answering machine picks up.)
SOL (Yelling on answering machine): MOM!!!!! MOM!!!! You've been in the bathroom for seventeen minutes! We know you're not in the shower because the update from the water company has shown NO activity during this entire time. We're calling the fire department!
(A few hours later. MOS is sitting on a sofa, eating a sandwich. The phone rings.)
MOS (answering phone): (Sigh) Hello?!?
SOL: Didn't your doctor say to cut back on fat?
MOS: What?!?
SOL: Uh. . . Hel-lo! Mayonaisse?!?
MOS: It's low-fat!
SOL: Don't lie to us! We got the receipt from Waldbaum's. . . .And what are you doing with all those yams?
MOS: I picked up some yams for the couple next door. They invited me over for dinner. . .
SOL: Oh. Well, OK. . . . Uh. . . So, what time will you be heading over there? Don't forget to set your collar for "roaming" so that we-- (MOS hangs up.) Uh. . . We think we might have gotten cut off. . . .So. . .uh. . . we'll just call back later. OK, bye.
(Later that afternoon. MOS sits on the couch, reading. The phone rings.)
MOS (snatching up phone): WHAT?!?
SOL: Don't "What?" us! You haven't taken your pill!
MOS: I took my pill!
SOL: Did not! Did not! LIES! LIES AND OBFUSCATIONS!
MOS: I TOOK MY PILL!!!
SOL: Look! We are looking at our "Pill Monitor" right now! You are supposed to take your pill at 3:30. It is 3:58, and our alarm has NOT gone off!
MOS: I TOOK MY FUCKING PILL!
SOL: YOU DID NOT! YOU DI-- Oh,. . . .Oh, never mind. We forgot to set the alarm. . . Our bad!
MOS: AND STOP REFERRING TO YOURSELF AS "WE"!!! IT'S SCHIZOPHRENIC AND CREEPY!!! (Hangs up)
(Later. Phone rings. MOS answers.)
MOS: Yes. Yes, I know. . . .I was a little late feeding the cat. I had to take a phone call from the fire department. They wanted to know why a fire engine had been dispatched to "rescue" me from my bathroom earlier this morning. I had to explain that my psychotic son panicked because he didn't know I had eaten a chili omelet for breakfast! Look, I know in the history of the world no mother has ever said this to her son: STOP CALLING SO OFTEN! (Hangs up.)
(A house in Florida. Living room. A phone rings. Answering machine picks up.)
SOL (On answering machine): Dad? DAD!!!! You forgot to shut off the coffee maker. . . . DAAAAAAD!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)