DESPERATELY SEEKING INTERNET ATTENTION

     I really can't believe that this hasn't been done before but a cursory image search revealed nothing. I keep seeing the various paper towel and toilet paper rackets issuing products with labels like "6 Super Rolls = 11 Regular Rolls!" or "6 Big Rolls = 8 Regular Rolls" and other variations on that kind of torturous math.

     In the Star Trek: TNG episode, "Chain of Command (part 2)", Captain Picard is tortured by a Cardassian named Gul Madred. One of the key points of the interrogator's attempts to break Picard was to ask him how many lights were there behind him shining on Picard.

Indeed.

     And yes, there were four lights. But every time Picard admitted this, he would be made to experience terrible pain. The interrogator insisted that there were in fact five lights in his efforts to break the captain. By the end, Picard was not only ready to admit that he saw five lights but that he believed he actually could see five lights. Instead, another guard came in and told Gul Madred that Picard had to leave. Picard, now knowing he had been rescued, screams at Madred, "THERE. ARE. FOUR. LIGHTS!!!" in a shining moment of awesome for the audience.

     Anyhow, with Charmin, Bounty, Cottonelle, Brawny, etc. all doing this inanity with fewer rolls somehow equalling more rolls (even though the "original" sized rolls no longer seem to be for sale), I had a moment of inspiration for this insipid attempt at a macro that yes, I'm hoping will somehow make the rounds on the internet because I'm desperate for attention and validation from anonymous strangers.

      At least I admit it...

Seriously...Charmin, Cottonelle, Brawny, Bounty, et al. Cut this shit out already...

STARTED WITH THE INTENT OF BEING AN ASSHOLE...ENDED UP CONTEMPLATIVE

     I've got myself reading comments on a post related to autism. I tell you, if you've ever needed help understanding what denial is and/or looked like, read a forum for parents of children with autism.

     Right away you're assaulted with corruptions of the English language: "My son is not autistic, he HAS autism..." said one mother who clearly doesn't understand that many nouns have adjectival forms and that the -ic suffix does in fact mean "having, showing, or affected by" among its several related definitions.
      Another mother put it this way, "I think a better way to say this is that you have autism. If you say you are autistic that means thats is [sic] all you are" - I find posts like this somewhat ironic as it seems parents with autistic kids make sure you know this fact, even if you didn't ask. It's like the old joke about "How can you tell if someone is a vegetarian? Don't worry, they'll tell you." And God forbid you're not 100% completely on their side of thinking. Oh, the hell that will rain down upon you. They're perfect little angels who, unlike typical children, need excessively costly care and limitless attention from one-on-one aides devoted to their "special needs", another term that bugs the shit out of me for being too vague and ultimately dishonest. These parents go way the fuck out of their way to delude themselves into thinking these kids can be just like typical kids; that all we need to do is understand they're just different. Different being a hell of a loaded word. Yes, autistics come with a range of misbehaviors. My Best Friend worked with them so I've got the stories ranging from ones who are otherwise alright except in certain circumstances - meaning they're fairly trainable - to ones which are so lost that they can't even speak at eight years old, still wear diapers, and have no clue whatsoever just how strong they are.

      As far as I can tell, there's no cure for autism and the cure, if one can be found, will likely be like those for cancer, a range of remedies. Or no cure will be found because a prenatal test will finally be developed to detect the gene or genes responsible for autism and their prevalence in the population, like that of Down Syndrome, will drop precipitously. I'm suspecting the latter will be what ultimately happens.
      More denial here: "I also agree with others who've pointed out that this is not an autistic child, but a child with autism. This is an important distinction in advocacy efforts to educate the public and educators that our children are not broken, not defective and not defined by their diagnosis." --- If they are not broken, defective, or otherwise defined by their diagnosis, then why all the advocacy? I feel like they want it both ways. They're not defective, but they need special-this and special-that. They're not defined by their diagnosis until the school refuses to treat them any different than a typical student in which case these children have special needs which must be addressed by the school system. Huh? That's like saying a blind person isn't defined by their diagnosis. Yeah, they pretty much are and compared to sighted people, their eyes/optic nerves are quite defective indeed, even broken. Yet analogizing this woman's sentences, she would likely claim that a person who's blind is no different from you and me but he needs special books printed in braille and seeing-eye dogs when out in public, but no different. Nope, not at all.

      They of course despise the adjective normal and will be quick to scold you for using the term because they feel this stigmatizes their autistic children as abnormal. They'll use the word "typical" or "regular" (and yes, the words will often appear enclosed within begrudging quotation marks) instead for describing children exhibiting expected behaviors not that I understand how the logical following that your autistic child is "atypical" or "irregular" is any less stigmatizing but whatever. "Some children's needs can't be met in a 'typical' classroom. That is why we have special education classes and teachers."

      Another common thread I take from these discussions are that these kids with autism are "not my (the parents') problem: they're your problem and you have to pay for it!" I find frequent appeals to government laws like IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) and threats to sue in open court. Never mind that I have no idea where this money is supposed to come should the parents win their cases no matter how meritorious the filing.
      I also see many references to all children having a right to an education. Again, it's not my problem, it's yours. Yes, but what rarely goes addressed is what to do if they are uneducatable? One commenter wrote the following:

What's the answer? I love how people bitch about education, but there are no solutions offered. Serious questions: 1) Is it fair to put special needs kids in a school with other kids? 2) Is it right for a teacher to spend 90% of their time on 10% of the kids? 3) Would there be objection to segmenting schools to where kids were sent to teachers who are equipped to teach different levels of learning? 4) Autism comes in many forms. If a child is non-verbal, yet superior at electronic learning, and another autistic child lashes out (Aspergers), would you put them in the same class due to Autism?

He followed up in response to another commenter who said that we (teachers) have to try to reach them all...

I agree that you try to reach them all, but at what point do you realize you can't? Being a little selfish here, but why should my child be told to read the book while you spend your time with the children who need the special attention? If it truly is an equal education, why is it that kids who take time from the rest of the class consistently [are] not removed and better place in classes with teachers who are better equipped to teach special needs children? If it is the social aspect that we are trying to give these kids, isn't that what recess, lunch, electives are for?

     He was treated well though such comments can often lead to flame wars.

      I know there are no simple solutions to this problem that's not a problem until you decide it's not a problem because then it most assuredly is. Personally, I'm an advocate for euthanasia for anyone who cannot be made to independently and lawfully participate in society. It seems the only humane thing to do. Yeah, I know it's not their fault they turned out this way. I also really don't believe George wanted to kill Lenny. From a resources point of view, it seems so entirely wasteful. All this investment with zero potential for positive overall returns. For every successfully trained autistic who makes the covers of magazines and gets interviewed on television for the public to praise, how many spend their lives in institutions in abysmal conditions just because we can't bring ourselves to give them an injection of euthasol (assuming it works the same on humans)? What is the success rate of education and training of individuals with autism? Does it even approach that of high school graduation rates or are they marvels of wasteful inefficiency? What is the cost/benefit analysis? I know from a parental point of view, their child is of course perfectly precious but what do the numbers say? I suppose for my own curiosity's sake, what is the cost/benefit analysis of the average human? I might be unpleasantly surprised to know the results.

      I hate these entries because they never go anywhere...

THIS IS WHY I ALWAYS READ THE COMMENTS SECTIONS

Once upon a midnight dreary, fingers cramped and vision bleary,
System manuals piled high and wasted paper on the floor,
Longing for the warmth of bed sheets, still I sat there doing spreadsheets.
Having reached the bottom line I took a floppy from the drawer,
I then invoked the SAVE command and waited for the disk to store,
Only this and nothing more.

Deep into the monitor peering, long I sat there wond'ring, fearing,
Doubting, while the disk kept churning, turning yet to churn some more.
But the silence was unbroken, and the stillness gave no token.
"Save!" I said, "You cursed mother! Save my data from before!"
One thing did the phosphors answer, only this and nothing more,
Just, "Abort, Retry, Ignore?"

Was this some occult illusion, some maniacal intrusion?
These were choices undesired, ones I'd never faced before.
Carefully I weighed the choices as the disk made impish noises.
The cursor flashed, insistent, waiting, baiting me to type some more.
Clearly I must press a key, choosing one and nothing more,
From "Abort, Retry, Ignore?"

With fingers pale and trembling, slowly toward the keyboard bending,
Longing for a happy ending, hoping all would be restored,
Praying for some guarantee, timidly, I pressed a key.
But on the screen there still persisted words appearing as before.
Ghastly grim they blinked and taunted, haunted, as my patience wore,
Saying "Abort, Retry, Ignore?"

I tried to catch the chips off guard, and pressed again, but twice as hard.
I pleaded with the cursed machine: I begged and cried and then I swore.
Now in mighty desperation, trying random combinations,
Still there came the incantation, just as senseless as before.
Cursor blinking, angrily winking, blinking nonsense as before.
Reading, "Abort, Retry, Ignore?"

There I sat, distraught, exhausted, by my own machine accosted.
Getting up I turned away and paced across the office floor.
And then I saw a dreadful sight: a lightning bolt cut through the night.
A gasp of horror overtook me, shook me to my very core.
The lightning zapped my previous data, lost and gone forevermore.
Not even, "Abort, Retry, Ignore?"

To this day I do not know the place to which lost data go.
What demonic nether world us wrought where lost data will be stored,
Beyond the reach of mortal souls, beyond the ether, into black holes?
But sure as there's C, Pascal, Lotus, Ashton-Tate and more,
You will be one day be left to wander, lost on some Plutonian shore,
Pleading, "Abort, Retry, Ignore?"

--- original author unknown and you're welcome.

COMMENTER NON GRATA

      It seems Cracked.com's head editor, David Wong, has had it out for commenters on his site for some time. I'm not sure he's ever liked them and even if you had doubts, when you find yourself being referred to as a cancer, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
      I understand his reasoning and examples of asshats abound. Cracked.com works very hard at removing bad comments (ones which insult or threaten the writer or are blatantly racist, homophobic, misogynistic, etc. --- criticism is okay, don't worry). We see a relatively clean comments section because moderators behind the scenes work so hard to keep it that way. The site has grown impressively in the past six years so it's not like alienating the small commenting community would make a difference at all. Still...I don't like it.

     While yes, I am offended at being viewed this way, I'm also realizing that far too much of my time is being devoted to that site. I didn't even realize it until I read about Cracked's growth that they've gone from publishing about six articles/videos a week to six articles/videos a DAY. The site, which I've been following for about three years now, has slowly been encroaching on my available time. It takes up too much now and I've known this for a while but just kinda accepted it.
      And because the comments tended to be spectacular, I would find myself reading "meh" articles simply to enjoy the top comments.

      With Mr. Wong's hatred of us commenters (I'm not a good one, but I do participate when I can), I think it's time I inspire myself to move on and be a part of that site far less frequently. Other things in my life are suffering as a result.
      I removed Cracked's page from my Facebook and Twitter feeds. That way, I won't be so often reminded of the site. It's a shame though, because I've made a couple of real-life friends as a result of comments made. I'll do what I can to return to the site only at my leisure rather than as a daily occurrence.

      I went through this with Gawker some time back. I enjoyed commenting on their often political posts anonymously so I wouldn't be judged on my sex, race, religion, etc. I had no desire to connect my Gawker account to my other accounts and when that became a requirement to post a comment, I simply stopped going to the site. (Gawker is also known for hating its commenters)

      Cracked may end up joining this website.

      Perhaps it will be best for me too. I'll get back to what I've been putting off for far too long now and perhaps find something new to do.

       We'll see...

YOUR FAULT OR MY FAULT OR A BIT OF BOTH?

     Is it still considered cyberstalking if you're only passively using the internet to keep an occasional eye on someone? I don't know. Usually when I hear the term I associate it with attempts to crack passwords or creating sock-puppet accounts to surreptitiously follow a person on social networking sites...shit like that.

     But what is it when it's passively done? Y'know, like with no attempts to communicate or harass? Like the girl I had a crush on in high school. We went to the same school...even had some of the same classes, so of course I saw her most days of any given week and would pay attention to her and get to know things about her through observation and overhearing things about her and on rare occasion by her. But I wouldn't bother her. I wasn't trying to use her friends to get to her. Okay, I did steal a picture of her once and followed her home this one time.
      Now I know that sounds bad, especially the latter one, but both were done opportunistically. In the latter case, it's not like I was waiting for her to leave at school and following a safe distance behind (or ahead as was my case). If I had done that, then yes...total psycho-stalker creep. The reality was that I just happened to notice she was walking about a block behind me. I ended up going out of my way, curious to where she was gonna turn. But it was just that one day and time. I even found out totally by chance later on, that that wasn't even where she lived. I dunno, maybe she was babysitting there or something. No, a mutual friend was bringing us home one day (school project...different story) and dropped her off first. So now I knew where she lived...but not because I had TRIED. And I didn't do anything about it. It became something I just knew.

      Anyways, my point is that. Because the internet is the thing these days. What if your cyberstalking is exclusively a passive activity? That is, you're just taking advantage of the person's lax security settings like you're a friend of a friend on Facebook and all the settings on the photos are viewable by "Friends of Friends" or they have a public Twitter feed or a public Instagram/Photobucket/Flickr account? Does that count or is that more like the equivalent of finding a phone number and address in an old phone book?
      Is searching on Google or Bing an e-mail address considered stalking or is that again, like looking someone up in a phone book?

      I feel like these attempts at justification answer my own question and that is, "Of course they are!...but I understand." What compels me to look in the first place? It's that feeling alone which poisons the activity no matter how benign. But still...it feels different. It's more like gathering intelligence and again, it's all passive. It's not like I'm using keyloggers or surreptitiously photographing at a distance or harassing their family/friends/coworkers so what exactly is IT that I am speaking of?
       A slightly different scenario. A girl shared several nude photos of herself with me a couple of years back all linked to a Photobucket account. The folder those pictures were in was marked private. However, the files were either unchanged default names (like IMG_0014 - put that in a Google Image Search and see what comes up! For additional fun, put MVI_00## in a YouTube search and see what comes up) or simple words like "pink", "me", or "silly". Now, you can't see the album, but if you have a direct link you can see the picture so on some bored nights I would try and guess file names and would occasionally succeed. Now that is tougher to justify. In fact, I can't. I think that actually counts as cyberstalking as I was taking advantage of a site vulnerability (since corrected by Photobucket...unfortunately) and not lax security protocol on the part of the user. I remember MySpace having a few exploits as well though the picture ones were fixed (unfortunately) before I ever got an account.
      Facebook offers a questionable example. Back in 2009 I believe, they changed their security settings and defaulted everything on everyone's profile to "Friends of Friends" unless you changed it. I was still reading Gawker at the time and was immediately aware of it and fixed my settings immediately. Not everyone did, including one of my crushes. She eventually did fix it but only after Facebook made it much easier to do so (I'm gonna take it she's not very computer savvy). Its current privacy screw-over is that all cover photos and all new profile photos are Public by default. You can change the profile picture setting, but not the cover photo. She hasn't noticed this...yet. But is that a site vulnerability issue making it thus cyberstalking or is that a user issue making her responsibility and thus I am merely seeing what anyone is allowed to see?

     It's such a confusing thing...

The first six unfiltered Bing Image Search results for IMG_0014:

IMG_0014 collage

MVI_0014 on YouTube

CARLY McKINNEY IS A ROLE MODEL...

     I saw this post on Gawker the other day. It's about a 23 year old math teacher in Colorado who has since been put on "administrative leave" for posts made on a now defunct Twitter account showing herself in various states of PG-13 undress, calling her students jailbait, and implying drug use.

Carly McKinney : Yes, I am totally adding these images in a nakedly desperate attempt to get my stupid blog to show up and be visited via a Google Image Search

     Now I personally do not know if any of the aforementioned tweets have been made on school time. If that's the case, I can understand any suspension and whatnot as I've argued in the past.  For the sake of this opinion, I will be assuming that they were not posted during school hours or using school computers and done instead, on her own time (even though under current law, my arguments do not matter according to the NEA - all that needs to happen is for the activity to be declared disruptive to the school: a judgement I'm sure will be found in a totally fair and unbiased manner).

     Comments in these articles inevitably point to Ms. McKinney deserving to be fired for failing to be a role model. (examples from the Gawker link)

"You can be a party girl famewhore, or you can be a schoolteacher. You cannot be both."

(commenter: Dismissed)

[sarcastically] "Yeah, she should really be rewarded for showing the judgement of a 14 year old while theoretically helping teach people's kids how to get on with life. Thanks for your insightful comment."

(commenter: Paul Tatara)

"...I know it is not right, but if you work in certain jobs, you simply can not behave this way online..."

(commenter: TuMadreTanbien)

"Idiot. You can't do that shit when you're a teacher, full stop. This woman grew up breathing social media if she's anything like other millennials, so there is absolutely no reason she should think any of that is okay. If you're a teacher (or any number of other public positions), you don't post this stuff online."

(commenter: GMaMazur)

     You can search articles for comments defending her: they're not hard to find. I will be offering my own defenses,  however, and these defenses will go beyond the obvious "slut shaming" thing needing to stop as it has happened inexcusably before and will continue to happen again. Because seriously, when was the last time a man was fired for being an underwear model or in porn?
     A quick Google search yielded nothing so the slant is fairly obvious.
     The teachers linked in the two articles not only did nothing illegal, but even if it's still technically conduct "unbecoming of a teacher" (how 19th century does that sound?), their photos and videos were made prior to them even becoming teachers!
     And it is that latter concept which factors into my defense...

     Why is Carly McKinney a role model of sorts? Because she demonstrates conclusively (at least up until the point of this media gossip-storm) that perfection is not required for success in life; that yes, you can grow up and with proper education, get a professional career regardless of one's past.
      It's the idea that you can still get ahead despite one's "youthful indiscretions". It's this idea that teachers can still be people too and not have to be held to these bizarre Victorian standards of stainlessness in order to be given the authority to teach our children.

Being hot should never be a terminable offense for a woman

     Because seriously, what are supposed to tell the stoners, the delinquents, the freaks and other perpetrators of "youthful indiscretions" in high school? That they can never amount to anything because they will be barred from any and all professions regardless of later academic achievement because society will refuse to acknowledge that they can change or gasp! actually be competent despite these faults?
     What are we supposed to tell the people who have prostituted themselves, performed in pornography, supported a position publicly that is unpopular, been to prison, and others whether legal or illegal? That despite this being a Christian nation, forgiveness will never come unto them? That they will be considered fuck-ups forever with no possibility for redemption or for simply letting bygones be bygones?

     That's the way it goes right now and probably will continue to go for the foreseeable future ever since background checks became so ludicrously easy to perform. And why should it be that way? Why should this system of intolerance and bullying - and yes, it is bullying...bullying in its most insidious degree as anyone who has ever been effectively shunned will recognize - be allowed to persist?
      And I don't care if the perpetrator was too young to know better or could have known better or should have known better...it doesn't matter. This gossip whose purpose is to ruin the lives of those who are either trying to make a better one for themselves or who are able to function competently in their jobs/professions despite their vices is entirely conducive to fostering hopelessness.
     Great...you made a mistake: now you've got to pay for it forever.
     Great...you've done something perfectly legal that petty people frown upon: now you've got to pay for it forever.
     Great...there's no point in working hard to achieve: no one will ever let you.
     Great...now you can either own up to your past and fail forever or you can hide it, living in perpetual terror that it will one day resurface and be used against you.

     What a shitty system.

Once a topless model, always a topless model...because it makes sense to do that to people

     If it were in my power, I would forgive Carly McKinney, reinstating her with pay immediately and without comment for actions both real and alleged portrayed by her online while off the clock. I would openly and hostilely condemn those who have maligned her for daring to have a life outside of her profession. I would condemn them for being busybodies and gossips. I would condemn those who insist upon such irresponsibly unrealistic purity standards for which a teacher may be judged fit for teaching.
     I would forgive those like Stacie Halas and Tiffani Webb, immediately reinstating them and without comment for actions performed by them PRIOR to becoming teachers and even if they were teachers at the time, those same actions were TOTALLY FUCKING LEGAL (and in the case of Stacie Halas for certain, also performed under a pseudonym) and thus would not be subject to firing if they were doing this stuff now (though if they did it in the school, yes...another matter entirely). I would condemn those that would judge these women unfit for duty on the basis of actions performed which were unrelated to their professions. I would condemn them for their inability to move on from their past lives. I would condemn them for holding these women guilty for their non-professional conduct. I would remind them that none of those doing the condemning and shaming are themselves without sin and that if held to their own standards, all of them would almost certainly be out of work.
     There are plenty of reasons to fire a teacher (or any professional): these are not any of them.

Because this clearly happened in the classroom

     No, if these women are to be judged, they are to be judged by the quality of their work in the classroom and their conduct therein. They should be judged by their professionalism as directly related their career. If Carly McKinney does an illegal drug in the classroom (or on school grounds): fired. If Stacie Halas films or her showcases her porn scenes in the classroom: fired. If Tiffani Webb models or has students take pictures of her in lingerie in the classroom: fired.

     But if they've done, they do or if they even consider doing any of these things (and more) on their own time, tell me again why it matters?

Pictured: personal time

      We tell people that life is about making mistakes and learning from them. But increasingly society makes life for people and especially professionals just so terrifyingly unforgiving. Yes, I am most certainly dreaming the dream of the idealist...but I want to live in a world where people are judged for their skills in life and not for their past lives.

     It really would only be fair.

As it should be...

ADDENDUM: Turns out a month before I had posted this, the Huffington Post reported that Stacie Halas, the teacher who PRIOR TO BECOMING A TEACHER performed in adult films had lost her appeal to get her job back and create a legal precedent that one's past is not allowed to infringe upon their present. Remember kids, in the eyes of the law: once a fuck up, always a fuck up. No forgiveness. No hope.

No forgiveness. No hope.

BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE MAY HAVE FOUND THIS AMERICAN DAD QUOTE FUNNY...

     The B-story of the American Dad episode, "The Adventures of Twill Ongenbone and His Boy Jabari" which originally aired on January 13, 2013 had Steve Smith attempting to do an assignment for his history class of learning about history from interviewing his father, Stan. Stan is not the type to open up on even impersonal matters face-to-face, but at the suggestion of one of Steve's friends, he called his father betting on the idea that if there's a space between him and his dad, he'll be more likely to open up and open up Stan did, revealing his multiple daily internal struggles without any more prodding than a hello.
     Stan first talked his career as a CIA operative, confessing how easy he now finds it to kill people. Whereas his original targets scarred him mentally, he is now able to think about dinner plans while carrying out assassinations.
      The next phone call had Stan revealing that he questions his lovemaking to his wife how it went from once being passionate to now, mechanical. Steve tried to hang up the phone, but was prevented by his friends who tackled and subdued him, leaving them to ask more about Francine and her body, much to Steve's disgust and horror.
      The third call came about when Steve's teacher accused Steve of lying about not doing the project when he claimed his father was uncooperative. He called his teacher out by calling his father in the middle of class and putting him on speaker phone (something Steve announced to his father). He asked Stan who the President was when he was young to which Stan replied with, "I don't know, who cares? I guess I think about killing myself pretty frequently and why not? What's so great about living? You know when I'm happy? For about five seconds in the morning when I first wake up. Before I remember who I am and what my life is all about: Anxiety...disappointment...diarrhea more often than not. (sighs) I don't know if there's an afterlife but who cares? Nothingness couldn't be any worse than this meaningless march through my empty days... (Steve hangs up the phone)"
      Steve turns to his teacher who has now positioned himself by the window exclaiming that Stan is right and that life is meaningless. He declares, "Life dismissed!" and throws himself out the window.

      Yes, the monologue is very depressing, but in context was hilarious. No, I'm not suicidal and I hope you're not either but I also made what Stan said into a handy-dandy Demotivational Poster for easy sharing. The preceding text was all for search engine purposes like printing all the lyrics to the Pillbugs' song "Greeting Committee" because that song, in my opinion, needs to be found.

Without further ado, here's your Demotivational Poster: Life Dismissed

You're welcome.

RUINING THINGS FOR YOU BECAUSE I AM A PETTY, PETTY MAN...

Pick a number, double it, add 10, divide it by 2, then minus it by the number you started with. You got 5.

     Saw that on a Twitter post earlier today. Okay, Twitter limits your posts to a maximum of 140 characters so I'll forgive the improper use of math terms and grammar but what remains is not at all amazing. Have you ever broken it down before or were you content with the mathematical slight-of-hand? Taken in steps, it looks like this:

Pick any number:
Okay, let's go with a variable instead so that we may represent all numbers and not just integers including (but not necessarily limited to) fractions, decimals, irrational, and imaginary numbers. I choose the old standby n.

Double that number:
2n

Add 10 to that product:
2n + 10

Divide that sum by 2:
(2n + 10) / 2

Subtract from that quotient, your original number:
[(2n + 10) / 2] - n

The difference will be 5:
Wow! Amazing!

However, let's break it down as we go this time:

Pick any number:
n

Double that number:
2n

Add 10 to that product:
2n + 10
Take note that this is the last step given to the participant which cannot be simplified.

Divide that sum by 2:
(2n + 10) / 2
simplify:
(2n / 2) + (10 / 2)
n + 5
The purpose of the Step Four is to undo Step Two. With the appearance of the number 5, the step also reveals that to control this equation for any result, simply double whatever you desire to be the outcome. In other words, had you wanted 7 to be the resultant difference, you would require the participant to add 14 to their (now doubled) original number.

Subtract from that quotient, your original number:
(n + 5) - n
simplify:
5
The purpose of the Step Five is to undo Step One. You know, the one thing you actually did that the host could not anticipate. But had he done this right away, you would have caught on so, through the flourish of busywork, the host has successfully distracted you from this exercise's preordained conclusion, bestowing upon him the suggestion of clairvoyance provided that you, the participant, choose not to reflect upon it too deeply (or at all). One might also think of this exercise as an intelligence test of sorts based on how it is repeated to others. Did you change the addend in Step Three, or leave it at 10? Did you suggest tripling or halving the original number (and yours as well) in Step Two, or did you leave it at doubling? I'm sure you can think of many other ways one might manipulate this equation ;-)

The difference will be 5:
Not so amazing this time around, right? Now take this knowledge and have some fun with your friends!

COINCIDENCE?

     Just a quick thought, but do you think the internet's ability to preserve much of what gets posted on it (and the ease with which such stuff can be copied and stored on other media for reposting anytime later) and the rise in anti-bullying groups is more than just a coincidence?

     Being bullied is never fun, regardless of its form or severity, even though it does teach you things about yourself, your attackers, humanity itself, the unfairness of life, futility, etc. But whether you were physically assaulted, openly ostracized, a convenient scapegoat, shunned, had your joys mocked, or merely ignored, it was safe to say that upon graduation from high school, you were given a new chance to start over. Hell, in college you just might meet several people who were bullied for the same reasons you were. Instant understanding friends! No guarantees of success of course: your brain chemistry now likely reflects some sort of trauma taking the form (and probably combination) of fear, vengeful envy, heartbroken silence, social awkwardness, comforting pride, simple hatred, worthlessness, or purposelessness, etc.

    The internet, however, is like permanent high school now and even though you've long since matured from previous naïvetés, the internet remembers.
     Photographs had to be taken with somewhat bulky cameras using actual film which then had to be developed. Not only that, but cameras weren't exactly something you could just carry around and plus the number of picture you could take were limited and instant sharing was not possible without a Polaroid camera. If you wanted to show someone an embarrassing photo of someone, you had to physically hand it to them and that person would have to hand it to someone else and so on and so forth. Sure, copying was possible, but that took time and money. Making fun of a person via a picture you've taken of them was difficult from both a logistical and economic perspective. Now we have digital photography and cellphones to not only take a picture that instant but can be shared hundreds of times essentially both instantly and at virtually no cost making any embarrassing outfit or antic effectively immortal.
     Your old poems? Notes given to girls/boys you liked? Fan-fiction writer were you? Evidence of prior phases you had gone through? You could throw them away, tear them to pieces...hell, even burn them and they'd be gone, existing only in your head and those heads whom you had shared them with. But these days, did you post it online? Are your uneducated opinions still available on some internet forum? Did you use the same e-mail for everything for a while so a simple Google search can lead a dedicated searcher to all sorts of goodies? How many websites have you signed up for that you've completely forgotten about? How many passwords have you forgotten? It's inescapable... I'm also sure you've never ever once forgotten to sign out of an account either.

     It makes me wonder...

INTERESTING...

     I saw this post on Facebook not too long ago. I'm well aware of the faulty reasoning contained therein, but nevertheless, it remains an interesting thought:

I never got why people would kill themselves.

So if you want to die you obviously don't give a shit about anyone. Because if there is anyone who loves you, you don't give a FUCK about them, or hurting them, and if there's not, then there's no one to give a shit about.

So instead of killing yourself why don't you get
the fuck out? Leave the basement, leave your house, leave your motherfucking country. Go on an adventure. Spend your time doing something awesome, like tracking down some terrorist. Go be James Bond. Go fuck up a shark with a harpoon. Danger? Fuck that, you were going up against a 100% death rate before, you're being safe now. Fuck EVERYTHING, man, the world is your oyster.

Sometimes I wish I was suicidal, I'd pull the barrel out of my mouth, point it in the air, and start a revolution. LIVE. Move to Barcelona, hit the bars, bang some chicks.

And then when I'm done, maybe I wouldn't want to kill myself, because I've seen how beautiful this world is.

tl;dr GO FUCKING DO SOMETHING!

ADDENDUM: A follow-up post from this user on Facebook had this to say:

Amanda Todd

Ok, well let's just get this all out of the way so you all can stop your bitching about this dead girl. A lot of what is posted in her video and on her page is fabricated to make her look like she was an angel. Think again.

1. She was 15 years old when she flashed those guys.
2. She did it out of her own free will. She CHOSE to do it.
3. She already flirted with many guys before.
4. She got 'beat' up at school not because of the picture, but because she slept with another girl's boyfriend. (refer to #1)
5. The guy 'bullied' her once only about 6-8 months after she flashed online. Not multiple times over 2 years.
6. She was known to have slept with multiple men and to sell herself out.
7. Her home life wasn't the best. (family troubles)

You people who are giving her sympathy and pity should all be ashamed of yourselves. Instead of giving pity to a girl who already committed suicide, how about you talk to that lonely kid at lunch? Yea, the one who sits all alone in the corner. But no, you'd rather sit with your friends and then come home and get on facebook and say shit like 'Oh, how come no one helped poor Amanda, she's so pretty, why did she have to die'. FUCK YOU! Go crawl back in your shell of safety while the ones who really need help are only an arms length away.

We should be talking about the ones who were bullied and managed to survive through it all. The success stories. Because that's what gives kids hope, the ones who know what it's like to be in their shoes. The ones who have walked that road before and came out ok.

What kind of message does it send to impressionable teens that if you go ahead and kill yourself that you will get thousands of likes on a facebook page and everyone will feel sorry for you and give you attention? If you have any self respect for the future then you'd stop and think about where your morals are. If you're too confused with your emotions and common sense, then just get off the internet entirely. No one wants to read your idiotic comments and your emotion filled rage tantrums.

tl;dr Stop giving pity to a dead girl. Give it to the ones who deserve it.

Again, not saying it is a valid point nor am I attesting to the veracity of the statements above about Amanda Todd's personal life...just another interesting point and yes, as a kid left to sit alone and be friendless in the days before online was a big deal and social-networking was just a dream (assuming anyone was even having that dream) and when cellphones were for rich douches...yeah, talk to that kid. Be a fucking friend instead of a fucking douchebag. And yeah, what about the survivors of bullying? If I was bullied at all, it was through ostracism. I'm not much of an inspiration. My Best Friend had it worse as did my former roommate who came out at a time when that still was a difficult thing to do and he was made to suffer for it rather than be praised.

I don't know. I have to go to bed. Maybe I'll amend this thought later. For now...just pause, and consider.

THOUGHTS I NORMALLY KEEP IN MY HEAD, part XVII

     I think what I would ultimately like from this blog is one entry that actually gets pageviews that are not my own (yes, I know about creating the cookie to stop that, but I think my other settings cause that cookie to be deleted daily). A little, "Good blog post Vachon!" or "Y'know, that LATE TO THE PARTY guy makes a valid point," pat on the back from the internet. Ideally it would be from one of my actually researched entries or at least one from a subject I am (at least somewhat genuinely) passionate about like coin collecting.

     I should be careful for what I wish for though. Knowing me, it'll be for one of my (amusingly?) ignorant, possibly hate-filled rants. Then I would get to be known as internet-stupid forever :-)

ON AUTISM AND EUTHANASIA

      I have my opinions on this matter. Those of you who know me surely know them already. However, I was genuinely surprised to have found this comment thread online after reading another article on the abuse of an autistic kid on Gawker. The comment thread of that particular site was typical gamut of how autistic kids need more help/cures/attention/blah blah blah which then devolved into people related their experiences with autistics and the occasional appearance of a troll who invited heaping, uncompromising scorn upon them. But it again left me with the question, why can't there ever be a serious discussion about what to do with autistics (and anyone like retards, pyschopaths, sociopaths, the insane, etc.) who are (naturally) incapable of (independent) lawful participation in society. It seems any instance I could ever find was like those in the Gawker article: trolls.

      However, I did stumble upon this thread on aspiesforfreedom.com and was surprised to read a five page discussion about this subject. Yes, it did become heated at times but I was genuinely impressed that it remained a discussion bordering on debate into the matter. The thread (read here) clearly does not support euthanasia as an option but refreshing in that it led to an open discussion rather than the KILL THE HATER type flame wars that I usually encounter.

      I want to discuss this thread at length but cannot do so now for want of time to compose. I think it needs to be talked about more, just as a concept...as a genuine debate since it is clearly a one-sided discussion in the general media. It's a dark and uncomfortable subject, but I would like it explored, debated, and a compromise forged if only, just because...

HOW HOT IS SHE?

DISCLAIMER: I fully admit I think too much about inconsequential things :-)

I've never really been a fan of the "Rate This Girl on a Scale of 1 to 10" and not because I find it sexist or anything. I actually think such a scale could be a useful tool if we were all on the same page with it but we're not. I mean, it should be a Bell Curve, right? Most people should fall somewhere in the middle of this arbitrary scale and yet they do not. Have you ever heard someone get a 5 or 6 and not feel insulted? Any site dedicated to this type of rating system shows far too many people on the 7 and 8 end of the spectrum suggesting that the scale should just be "Rate This Girl on a Scale of 5 to 10" but then I'm left wondering if grade inflation would hit a scale reduced that way as well.


As worthless an endeavor as it sounds, I've actually given thought to this stupid scaling system and wondered if it could be made not more sensible, but more useful even though no matter how thoroughly such a scale might be presented, it will remain ultimately subjective. Its value might lie in being around like-minded people which could then permit helpful comparisons. And yes, if I actually believed for a moment that people would actually read the instructions beforehand, I would happily create a website devoted this scaling system.

LINE OF THE DAY, part XV

      Taken from this article in Gawker. Comment by JasonsRobot:

Yep. If time travel were ever possible in the future, someone would've gone back in time and done something.. like kill Hitler as a child for example - That will never happen because, if it did/does, we wouldn't have experienced Hitler in our past if he was killed as a child.

Unless all time travelers are assholes and do stuff like help Hitler and cause The Depression... and thwart me from getting laid in high school.

/my theory: time travelers are cockblockers and assholes/

LINES WHICH CONTACT AN ARC OR CIRCLE AT ONLY ONE POINT...

      Sometime last week on the Opie and Anthony Show, Anthony was again referencing an old made-for-cable porn movie called "The Cheerleaders" he saw as a teenager. This movie usually comes up when talking about some creepy guy who got arrested for doing something or other. He would reference one scene where one of the girls, during a sleepover, happens upon the father in the living room. "Well, what do we have here?" was the line that Anthony would say while effecting a creepy, nervous-sounding voice before they end up having sex.

      I had heard this reference made plenty of times before but this time, I actually heard the title of the film so I looked it up so I could see the scene for myself. The film was actually a soft-core title made in 1973. There were attempts at humor but nothing particularly effective. A couple of scenes in the classic "Debbie Does Dallas" were actually funny. Nothing in this film.

      I didn't watch the whole film. I just did the other thing I particularly enjoy when watching a pornographic film or vignette: waiting for the moment it becomes porn. Because all porn films have that in common: the set-up. Most scenes don't begin mid-fuck, they have to get to that point. Some ease into it organically while others just drop the pretenses clumsily. When done organically, the resulting scene can actually be rather hot. Done clumsily, it can either ruin the vignette or simply be hilarious. Generally it causes ruin if the vignette in question has a set-up that you would actually want to happen in some way, shape, or form. I guess the ruination is the result of it deviating too far from your fantasy, but whatever. Pornographic films, unlike the vignettes, actually have normal set-ups which introduce us to the characters and plot. If the film can keep you interested, you can actually forget you're watching a porno until that first scene.

      And it was during these opening minutes where the film "The Cheerleaders" produced the most offensive imagery I think I have ever seen in a pornographic film:

      I mean, look at those prices! In 1973, I could get two hotdogs and side order of fries and still get change for my dollar. And those are inflated concession-stand prices. What the hell happened to our dollar? Sigh...

      Anyhow, it turns out Anthony remembers the scene described earlier better than it actually was making it kind of a let-down.

       The other strange, possibly sad, thing I learned on this adventure is that it was far easier for me to locate an obscure early 1970s soft-core porn title on the internet than it was for me to locate a dealer who specializes in foreign coins. There are some Italian issues that I have been interested in for quite a while. I finally stumbled on the right combination of search terms and after much link-jumping finally located a consortium of dealers in Europe who all collectively offer on a large website. While the sites offer English, I was still nonetheless thankful I had taken French and German in school. The sites also offered additional proof that despite the United States being one of the newer nations, our coins are the shit in terms of value. It's almost offensive that a cent made a mere 80 years ago (1931-S), despite being fairly available, sells for more than a British silver penny made in the 13th century (yeah, the penny used to be like the dollar today before it got debased into a bottom-rung coin). In fact, a denarius featuring none-other than THE Julius Caesar on it, while expensive (over a $1,000), sells for less than several key-date US coins (1909-S VDB 1¢; 1885 5¢; 1916-D 10¢; 1901-S 25¢; 1921-S 50¢; 1893-S $1). You can even get coins with fucking Napoléon on them for less than some semi-key coins. Napoléon!

      And this folks, is a taste of how my mind works. I started by talking about a soft-core porno and, through a series of tangents, ended up talking about the relative values of coins.

LINE OF THE DAY, part III

Taken from this article on Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis blog:

"When someone is honestly 55% right, that’s very good and there’s no use wrangling. And if someone is 60% right, it’s wonderful, it’s great luck, and let him thank God. But what’s to be said about 75% right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about 100% right? Whoever say he’s 100% right is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal."
[preface to Nobel Prize-winning author Czeslaw Milosz's The Captive Mind]
 Also, please to be enjoying the Daily Show video within the article.

LINE OF THE DAY II

      I'm reading the comments section for a Cracked.com article titled "Bridalplasty: The New Reality Show That Proves We're Doomed" by Daniel O'Brien and stumbled upon this gem by stueymon:

Hey I've got an idea for a great reality show!

It's called "Chance For Life"

Twelve patients with a fatal condition that could be solved with a much-needed organ transplant compete to win the affections of a convicted serial killer on death row to win his love and upon his execution, one or more of his organs.

Put simply, when they win his heart, they win his heart.

(I corrected his spelling and grammar for the purposes of clarity)

RESPONSES TO THIS POST:
(CoronaryThief) You could well be on to something there...
(i.nuthead) WIN!
(AaronRaymer) I hate the fact that I'm almost certain you could get this on the air.
(NinjaJeph) Of all the reality television out there, this is the one I would watch.
(danraynard) Awesome!

A later comment referred to this article about a television show that could never get produced called "Time Travelling Sex Offenders" which was also full of win.

ANONYMOUS ADVICE

      While 4chan is rightfully described as a hive of wretched scum and villainy with a soft side for cats, that does not mean it is incapable of moments of perfect beauty. In the sea of chaff that is /b/, I came across this diamond.

--- LIFE HACKS ---

Never, ever hide your interest in a girl. That being said, don't make it obvious.

Be manly. Don't give attention when they ask for it. Be a challenge; be mean in a fun way; don't care too much; don't give them all your time; and don't give them all your attention. Don't focus all your energy on just one girl.

If they "Friend Zone" you, stop talking to them at once.

If they cheat on you, leave them at once and never think back on it.

If you joke around too much and they get butthurt, use "I can make it up to you, I give great massages" or hug her.

Never explain yourself. Apologize ONLY when needed. Never doubt yourself, EVER.

Believe in everything, every fucking thing you ever do. Visualize and plan what you want, do it. Don't doubt yourself, ever.

Confidence will get you everything you want. Confidence works with girls, dogs, interviews, even for getting friends. Fuck, you can even use it to get away from cops. Confidence is a virtue which you MUST have. It is a fucking need.

If you want to talk to a girl, go up to her and say "Hi." If you have doubts, destroy them.

"What if she laughs at me...?" Then don't dress like a faggot, don't talk like a faggot, and don't act like someone she'll laugh at. You have a brain, use it. Plan, think, believe in your plan; act on it.

Think of what to say, don't just ask everyone. Being lazy is easy; being lazy won't get you anywhere. Don't be the person who gets everything handed to him. Be the man that gets whatever he wants.

Stand the fuck up and get what you want. Women want men; not boys with emotions. Women want men that will change the world. The world wants men that will change it.

Never ask for permission: "Do you want to...?" Always assume that they do. Change the question into an order. If they can't or don't want to, they're still going to reject you in the same way. The only difference is you came across as more assertive.

"Do you want to do something this weekend?"

                               Change it to

"I'm free this weekend. Let's hang out and have fun."

Look them in the eye when they talk to you. Don't shift between eyes...pick one and stick to it. When the topic changes or when you start talking, it's okay to break contact for a few seconds, but maintain it when you're talking. If it's something sexual, don't you fucking dare break eye contact!

Smile every now and then ever so slyly. Don't know how to make a sexy smile? Pretend you're about to fuck the shit out of her.

Always stand with your feet shoulder-length apart; hands with thumb in the pocket and the rest of the fingers pointing towards your crotch. It's sexual and confident; better than hiding your hands in your pockets or just leaving them out there awkwardly.

When you walk, walk slowly and confidently. Look people in the eye as you walk. Don't you DARE look at the ground at any time ever.

When sitting down, lean back a little; be casual and spread your legs a little more than shoulder-length. Don't cross your arms unless you want to come across as uninviting.

Laugh loudly but don't laugh at everything. Make her work for your attention.

Don't spam them with texts. Don't call them unless if it's to meet up with her. If she calls, talk to her; but if you feel the conversation dying out, end it by saying you have something to do. Lie if you have to, but be smart about it.

If she does something awkward or weird, point it out and make fun of her for it. Don't overdo it and make sure it's at least a little funny. Women laugh easily.

No sudden head movements. Move slowly and confidently. Walk as if you own the place...always. Take up space.

Touch her. When you're walking, push her jokingly. Move her using your hand on her lower back. Open doors for her; guide her away from water or gross things that she might walk in to. Always be on the "dangerous" side of the road, be it cars or sketchy people. Make her feel safe and protected.

If it's cold, give her your jacket; don't ask if she wants it. If she's shivering or says, "I'm so cold," take it off and put it on her. Don't ask; don't say anything; do it.

If you think something she said is wrong, TELL HER. Women respect men with opinions. Don't agree with everything; actually talk and discuss with her.

If they talk about their ex, give them cold body language and/or quickly try to change the topic. If it's something sad, say this: "Hey now, we're having fun. Let's not share sob stories." Be prepared to quickly talk about something else. Always have at least five backup stories in case the conversation goes stale. Leave sob stories for later in the relationship.

Don't settle for women with low standards. If you're genuinely not interested, find someone else.

Don't do the whole "FUCK FATTIES AND WORK YOUR WAY UP". No. You only deserve the best. Hotter women are easier and usually bigger sluts. It's shocking but true.

I have plenty more if anyone is interested.

Oh I am. Too bad there weren't any more to be found... I seriously want to memorize this list. I have some disagreements with some points, but I don't think I can knock the assertiveness angle and how to stand/sit. It feels right. I must stop being so meek!

LINE OF THE DAY

I was reading through the comment section of this Cracked article and stumbled upon this gem from Crusty_McNads:

I think the concept of time is more like being duct-taped to the back of an ambulance without brakes hurtling towards an orphanage at 200 mph with a shrieking monkey throwing dynamite at oncoming traffic as they try to dodge your wake of destruction. and the only thing playing on the radio of the ambulance is the sound of cash registers opening mixed with people screaming... the point is you have no idea when you'll finally smash into the orphanage, delivering an explosion large enough to vaporize anyone caught within 100 yards of the building due to your payload of unexploded dynamite that the deranged monkey has not yet managed to unload into the unexpecting populace, but you can see the trail of destruction which follows your journey towards death.

also the monkey smokes a cigar.

WHAT THE FUCK GOOGLE?

     How many goddamned sites do I have to be a member of these days? Everything's an impedence to communication all the sudden.

     Want to send a message? Just sign up for "Friend Connect" and then you'll be able to post one right away! Fuck that! How about a link and I can send a message? I'm getting real tired of this shit.

     I know the days of the "Wild West Internet" are waning. Soon we'll likely have to pay for all our content like we do for our cellphones and our cable. It won't be so bad, really. Remember when cable was still fairly new and the idea of paying for television was deemed absurd because you could get it for free over the air? Now people look at you funny if you don't pay for cable. The internet will be the same. It'll mark our age to future generations when we talk about how it used to be a free-for-all.

     I'm just really hoping against hope that this multi-signup thing isn't part of the deal. I know there's this new trend to have a single log-in site now (I imagine it is a furious competition that Google will likely win). I have to admit I'm suspicious of it. It reminds of the old TV/VCR combo-sets they used to offer. The only problem with that is if one broke down, the whole thing became worthless. The analogue to that is why I'm leery of single log-in sites. If that log-in gets compromised, the EVERYTHING gets compromised. But I have digressed...

     Seriously, stupid internet sites. Cut it out. I'm a member of Blogger.com. Allow me to send messages to those who have actually decided to follow me without having to sign up for a whole new service. My password load is already quite heavy.

     I still wonder what it would feel like to come home to find all the dishes had been washed... That'd be nice...