Front-page article in today's Times discusses the byzantine world of online sports betting. Such betting is mostly illegal in the United States, except in Las Vegas, because sports betting is perfectly fine as long as it's conducted in a desert atmosphere. When people outside of Vegas bet on sports, they are engaging in an illegal activity, and so must navigate the shadowy realms of the internet and, apparently, Fifth Avenue. It's all rather confusing to me. Mainly because sports betting--and gambling in general--is one of those mostly victimless crimes like personal marijuana use and, I don't know, arson, that people should be allowed to engage in, free from government interference. The very fact that sports books are legal in Vegas--and other forms of gambling are legal virtually everywhere across the country--is an indication that maybe the federal government could find better things to do with its time. In the meantime, though, I will just reiterate that people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their own money. Except bet on the Knicks--that's a clear sign of a dangerous mental deficiency.
*************
People are drawn to Ben Carson because he is "calm." Makes sense. It's a trait that appeals to classic Republican values. Like Teddy Roosevelt said, "Speak softly and be an idiot."
Showing posts with label The Internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Internet. Show all posts
Monday, October 26, 2015
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Questionable Results
As anyone who has ever googled knows, when you Google something, the search engine attempts to figure out what you want even before you finish typing in the search bar. Presumably, the results Google suggests are based on the popularity of search terms; thus, if you type in the letter 'a,' Google promptly suggests "Amazon" (and no doubt receives a comparatively hefty royalty on anything purchased after a subsequent click).
Since Google is the go-to source for the answers to any question one could think of, I was curious to see what popular questions people were asking. I typed each of the six "reporter's questions"--who, what where, when, how, and why--into the search bar. Following are the "results," i.e., the first complete "question" that popped up after I typed the question-word and hit the space bar:
Who framed Roger Rabbit?
What is my IP?
Where is Chuck Norris?
When is Mother's Day? (NOTE: The first result that actually came up was "When I was your man," the title of a Bruno Mars' song.)
How to tie a tie. (NOTE: The top result was actually "How I Met Your Mother," which I assumed was a reference to the TV show, until I clicked and found a truly disturbing story about Sergey Brin and MOS, which I refuse to share here.)
Why is the sky blue?
So what can we conclude from this list? Well, a number of people seem concerned about technical issues (What is my IP?). A number of others are probably 12 years old (the ones who want to know why the sky is blue and how to tie a tie--perhaps to wear when they visit Mom on Mother's Day--which we helpfully learn was May 11th--and why is THAT still the most popular "When" question, eight months after the fact?).
I have no idea why the number-one "Who" question is a reference to a twenty-five-year-old movie, nor why people fret over the whereabouts of Chuck Norris, but the ultimate takeaway from this experiment is that the interwebs remain a strange, strange place, only slightly redeemed by the fact that the second most popular "Why" question is the eminently sensible, "Why do cats purr?"
Since Google is the go-to source for the answers to any question one could think of, I was curious to see what popular questions people were asking. I typed each of the six "reporter's questions"--who, what where, when, how, and why--into the search bar. Following are the "results," i.e., the first complete "question" that popped up after I typed the question-word and hit the space bar:
Who framed Roger Rabbit?
What is my IP?
Where is Chuck Norris?
When is Mother's Day? (NOTE: The first result that actually came up was "When I was your man," the title of a Bruno Mars' song.)
How to tie a tie. (NOTE: The top result was actually "How I Met Your Mother," which I assumed was a reference to the TV show, until I clicked and found a truly disturbing story about Sergey Brin and MOS, which I refuse to share here.)
Why is the sky blue?
So what can we conclude from this list? Well, a number of people seem concerned about technical issues (What is my IP?). A number of others are probably 12 years old (the ones who want to know why the sky is blue and how to tie a tie--perhaps to wear when they visit Mom on Mother's Day--which we helpfully learn was May 11th--and why is THAT still the most popular "When" question, eight months after the fact?).
I have no idea why the number-one "Who" question is a reference to a twenty-five-year-old movie, nor why people fret over the whereabouts of Chuck Norris, but the ultimate takeaway from this experiment is that the interwebs remain a strange, strange place, only slightly redeemed by the fact that the second most popular "Why" question is the eminently sensible, "Why do cats purr?"
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.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
What's a Little Cannibalism Among Friends?
Boy, you go online and engage in a little friendly banter about raping, murdering, and eating your wife and some of her girlfriends, and all of a sudden you're a horrible person! Or at any rate, you're Gilberto Valle. Valle, a New York City policeman (!) is currently on trial, charged with conspiracy to commit kidnapping after his conversations on a fetish website were discovered by his wife, Kathleen Mangan-Valle. While the graphic conversations are certainly disturbing, to say the least, the case raises legal and ethical questions that are potentially even more disturbing.
Let me say immediately that I am obviously not privy to all the details of the case. I don't know how far Valle's conversations went or to what extent they could be considered active plotting, as opposed to just shared fantasizing. To me, though, the fact that the conversations took place on a fetish site (instead of, say, private one-to-one discussions) suggests they are more likely the latter. Does that make the conversations OK? Debatable. I'll come back to that. But it definitely raises questions about what, exactly, Valle is legally culpable of--if indeed he is legally culpable of anything at all.
As far as I know, a person cannot be prosecuted for conversation. I make a distinction here between conversation and conspiracy. A conspiracy--by definition--is secret. Valle posted his fantasies on a website where men (I'm assuming they're mostly men) post their fantasies and share them with others. It is, in other words, a public forum; anyone with an internet connection and perhaps a credit card can access it. The essentially public nature of the conversations speaks against charges of conspiracy.
(Again, I do not know all the particulars: If Valle engaged in other, more surreptitious conversations that named, say, times and places or that delved into active planning, then a conspiracy case becomes much stronger. I am here, though, more concerned with the implications of the case as I have outlined them here.)
Still, when people hear about a man--particularly a policeman--engaging in graphically violent, horrifically disturbing fantasies involving rape, torture, mutilation, etc., they understandably feel that something should be done, that punishment should be administered. In Valle's case, his wife (potential victim?) has, quite reasonably, left him. Considering that Valle "wept visibly" during his wife's testimony, I will speculate that he is suffering. Regardless of the trial's outcome, he may lose his job and/or be required to undergo extensive psychological counseling. Is this enough? Should the criminal justice system be involved?
What if, instead of visiting a fetish website, Valle had simply committed his violent fantasies to a journal, a journal that was then discovered by his wife? Would he be guilty of a crime if the journal described his desire to commit horrendous acts? What if he had said these things in the privacy of, say, a counseling session? Yes, therapists may be required to report patients to the authorities if they speak of plans to commit violent acts, but would a patient saying something like, "Sometimes I fantasize about raping and killing women" rise to that level?
The truth is that all of us--all of us--engage or have engaged in dark, disturbing fantasies. Perhaps they don't rise to such grand guignol levels as those described in the case of Gilberto Valle. Nevertheless, most people would experience shame unimaginable if even their fantasies of perfectly legal actions--telling off an overbearing boss, spending a steamy weekend with an attractive co-worker--came to light. The potential shame, of course, is what keeps most of our fantasies safely concealed within our mental lockboxes. But is it a matter for the courts if our fantasies, legal or otherwise, are revealed? Personally, I hope not.
(Hm. I guess whimsy will have to wait at least another day.)
Let me say immediately that I am obviously not privy to all the details of the case. I don't know how far Valle's conversations went or to what extent they could be considered active plotting, as opposed to just shared fantasizing. To me, though, the fact that the conversations took place on a fetish site (instead of, say, private one-to-one discussions) suggests they are more likely the latter. Does that make the conversations OK? Debatable. I'll come back to that. But it definitely raises questions about what, exactly, Valle is legally culpable of--if indeed he is legally culpable of anything at all.
As far as I know, a person cannot be prosecuted for conversation. I make a distinction here between conversation and conspiracy. A conspiracy--by definition--is secret. Valle posted his fantasies on a website where men (I'm assuming they're mostly men) post their fantasies and share them with others. It is, in other words, a public forum; anyone with an internet connection and perhaps a credit card can access it. The essentially public nature of the conversations speaks against charges of conspiracy.
(Again, I do not know all the particulars: If Valle engaged in other, more surreptitious conversations that named, say, times and places or that delved into active planning, then a conspiracy case becomes much stronger. I am here, though, more concerned with the implications of the case as I have outlined them here.)
Still, when people hear about a man--particularly a policeman--engaging in graphically violent, horrifically disturbing fantasies involving rape, torture, mutilation, etc., they understandably feel that something should be done, that punishment should be administered. In Valle's case, his wife (potential victim?) has, quite reasonably, left him. Considering that Valle "wept visibly" during his wife's testimony, I will speculate that he is suffering. Regardless of the trial's outcome, he may lose his job and/or be required to undergo extensive psychological counseling. Is this enough? Should the criminal justice system be involved?
What if, instead of visiting a fetish website, Valle had simply committed his violent fantasies to a journal, a journal that was then discovered by his wife? Would he be guilty of a crime if the journal described his desire to commit horrendous acts? What if he had said these things in the privacy of, say, a counseling session? Yes, therapists may be required to report patients to the authorities if they speak of plans to commit violent acts, but would a patient saying something like, "Sometimes I fantasize about raping and killing women" rise to that level?
The truth is that all of us--all of us--engage or have engaged in dark, disturbing fantasies. Perhaps they don't rise to such grand guignol levels as those described in the case of Gilberto Valle. Nevertheless, most people would experience shame unimaginable if even their fantasies of perfectly legal actions--telling off an overbearing boss, spending a steamy weekend with an attractive co-worker--came to light. The potential shame, of course, is what keeps most of our fantasies safely concealed within our mental lockboxes. But is it a matter for the courts if our fantasies, legal or otherwise, are revealed? Personally, I hope not.
(Hm. I guess whimsy will have to wait at least another day.)
Monday, February 4, 2013
What Could POSSIBLY Go Wrong?
Sometimes the blogging Gods just smile down on you at the right moment. Here I was, tired, uninspired, about to toss up my hands and beg forgiveness for yet another missed night, when I logged onto Facebook and saw a friend's post about this: Bangwithfriends.com.
The site, from what I can tell (because I assure you I am FAR too chicken actually to click on the link), combines the anonymous hook-up possibilities of Craigslist with the safe coziness of your Facebook friends list. You can (again, as far as I can tell--total chicken here) sign up for this, uh, service through your Facebook account and then, if your friends also sign up, you will be somehow informed of their desire--not necessarily for YOU, I suppose, but just for a no-strings (if there is such a thing) encounter.
I honestly don't know whether to be appalled or impressed. In a way, it's ingenious--until you start to ponder the ramifications. I mean, first of all, there's the aforementioned non-guarantee of mutual attraction. Imagine the awkwardness of finding a friend on this site, contacting him/her, only to be told thanks, but no thanks. The last thing a guy needs to hear is that a girl "loves him as a Facebook friend."
I suppose many, if not most, people have one or two exes on a friends' list. I guess that could be slightly less awkward although potentially more damaging to a delicate psyche.
But, for me, here's the most potentially terrifying aspect of Bangwithfriends. I don't know (Remember: Chicken!) whether this site allows you to specify people you DON'T want to hear from. How many of us, for example, have cousins, siblings, and/or God-help-us PARENTS on our friends' list? Some of my relatives are very attractive people, but still. I. Don't. Want. To. Know. (And I'm sure they feel the same.)
Call me a traditionalist, but I think random sexual encounters with friends should happen the old-fashioned way: drunken hook-ups in a supply closet at the office Christmas party. Just call me a romantic.
The site, from what I can tell (because I assure you I am FAR too chicken actually to click on the link), combines the anonymous hook-up possibilities of Craigslist with the safe coziness of your Facebook friends list. You can (again, as far as I can tell--total chicken here) sign up for this, uh, service through your Facebook account and then, if your friends also sign up, you will be somehow informed of their desire--not necessarily for YOU, I suppose, but just for a no-strings (if there is such a thing) encounter.
I honestly don't know whether to be appalled or impressed. In a way, it's ingenious--until you start to ponder the ramifications. I mean, first of all, there's the aforementioned non-guarantee of mutual attraction. Imagine the awkwardness of finding a friend on this site, contacting him/her, only to be told thanks, but no thanks. The last thing a guy needs to hear is that a girl "loves him as a Facebook friend."
I suppose many, if not most, people have one or two exes on a friends' list. I guess that could be slightly less awkward although potentially more damaging to a delicate psyche.
But, for me, here's the most potentially terrifying aspect of Bangwithfriends. I don't know (Remember: Chicken!) whether this site allows you to specify people you DON'T want to hear from. How many of us, for example, have cousins, siblings, and/or God-help-us PARENTS on our friends' list? Some of my relatives are very attractive people, but still. I. Don't. Want. To. Know. (And I'm sure they feel the same.)
Call me a traditionalist, but I think random sexual encounters with friends should happen the old-fashioned way: drunken hook-ups in a supply closet at the office Christmas party. Just call me a romantic.
Monday, October 8, 2012
BEST. WEBSITE. EVER!
Notice anything different about today's post? You probably don't, but I do--or I will in about 80 words. Tonight's musings, you see, are being composed not in their usual venue at Blogger.com, but rather on the Best. Website. Ever: "Written? Kitten!" (http://writtenkitten.net).
The site is exactly what it sounds like. OK, maybe that requires a bit more explanation. If you go to "Written? Kitten!" you will find an empty text box. Start writing in the box. After writing 100 words, you will be rewarded with a picture of a kitten! And as if that weren't enough, every 100 words thereafter--OH, I JUST GOT MY FIRST KITTEN OF THE DAY! OOOOOOHHHHH, IT'S A WIDDLE OWANGE OOGY-WOOGY WIF BLUE EYES AND A WIDDLE PINK NOSE!!!!
Ahem.
Sorry.
As I was saying, every 100 words thereafter, you will receive a "fresh kitten." If this isn't a cure for writer's block, I don't know what is. And consider the pedagogical possibilities. I'm thinking of requiring my students to type all their assignments on this site. "I'm sorry, Johnny. But I wanted at least a five-kitten essay. This is three kittens at most."
One caveat: You cannot save work on "Written? Kitten," so you need to copy and paste your work to a word processing program or e-mail every kitten or so. Still, it's more than worth any such minor inconvenience. Thanks to Ms. Brandy Gibson for introducing me to this site, a site that could go a long way towards making the world a better place.
The site is exactly what it sounds like. OK, maybe that requires a bit more explanation. If you go to "Written? Kitten!" you will find an empty text box. Start writing in the box. After writing 100 words, you will be rewarded with a picture of a kitten! And as if that weren't enough, every 100 words thereafter--OH, I JUST GOT MY FIRST KITTEN OF THE DAY! OOOOOOHHHHH, IT'S A WIDDLE OWANGE OOGY-WOOGY WIF BLUE EYES AND A WIDDLE PINK NOSE!!!!
Ahem.
Sorry.
As I was saying, every 100 words thereafter, you will receive a "fresh kitten." If this isn't a cure for writer's block, I don't know what is. And consider the pedagogical possibilities. I'm thinking of requiring my students to type all their assignments on this site. "I'm sorry, Johnny. But I wanted at least a five-kitten essay. This is three kittens at most."
One caveat: You cannot save work on "Written? Kitten," so you need to copy and paste your work to a word processing program or e-mail every kitten or so. Still, it's more than worth any such minor inconvenience. Thanks to Ms. Brandy Gibson for introducing me to this site, a site that could go a long way towards making the world a better place.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Error 404
Computer engineers in the Bay Area have been on alert today. Back in February, tweets by the online non-collective Anonymous proposed a plot to launch a massive "Distributed Denial of Service" attack on the internet today, March 31--the idea being to effectively "shut down" the internet. While most experts doubted the validity of the threat--or the ability of Anonymous to pull it off--people are taking no chances.
Well, folks, I am here to put your minds at ease. I have spoken to the leaders of the leaderless "Anonymous," and they have assured me that there will, in fact be no attempt to shut down the interne-----------
sdkgbzcnb,vcvn,mcbcc,;,. . . .
. . . . .
. . .
.
Well, folks, I am here to put your minds at ease. I have spoken to the leaders of the leaderless "Anonymous," and they have assured me that there will, in fact be no attempt to shut down the interne-----------
sdkgbzcnb,vcvn,mcbcc,;,. . . .
. . . . .
. . .
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)