Real-World News

So UK politicians are caving in to lobbyists yet again, this time it's resulted in a gem of can't-go-wrong legislation that, in essence, results in ISPs canceling internet access if filesharing is detected on a customer's account. What the law fails to account for—in an epic way—is a golden principle of the internet: you can never assume positive ID based on IP address.

For those who have no idea what any of that means, live in the UK, and don't engage in filesharing, the chances are decently good that you're gonna wind up being disconnected for filesharing down the line. It really doesn't matter that you're not filesharing, but it does, in fact, matter that you have any one of a myriad of security holes on your computer that could easily allow someone to silently hijack your internet connection and route their filesharing traffic through it. On top of that, you're probably using outdated, totally insecure wireless encryption (or none at all).

There's not much you can do to prove your innocence, either, because politicians assume that IP addresses correspond to the account holder using the ip address. That's basically just as bad as assuming that the return address on an envelope is the true sender of the letter.

Anyway, I can't wait until one of them gets busted under his own law when some dude hacks his wireless and goes on a filesharing spree. Maybe another one of them will download a trojan that opens a proxy (very common). The most amusing that I've recently seen are trojans that not only open a proxy, but a public proxy, so that not only can the attacker use your internet connection as he pleases, so can anyone else on the internet who stumbles across it.

If I were to guess, basically the only people who likely could actually successfully instantaneously track and pinpoint—accurately—typical forms of traffic, encrypted or not, routed through proxies is the NSA, and I assure you they couldn't give a rat's ass about filesharing or anything other than actual matters of national and international security—and they never will. ...and that's the way it should be.

But you'd think that maybe—just maybe—one of the UK lawmakers could have consulted with... I dunno... their IT staff before splicing this in? Maybe google the word "proxy?" Nah... it's easier to just take the money and let the chaos ensue, apparently. So what if a few innocent people get their access yanked and then get sued by some record label for downloading something they never downloaded, with absolutely no way to prove their own innocence?

So, my little younglings of the internet—and yes, that includes you, lawmakers above the age of 40—the moral of the story is simple: never, ever, sponsor, vote for, encourage, or write legislation that implicitly trusts ip addresses as a form of positive ID. That is, not unless you, too, want to eventually fall victim to your own legislation when some nutjob opponent frames you for something you'll have never even done. At least when it comes to being framed for drugs they have to procure some drugs first, but on the internet, you can be toast in as little as a few keystrokes—all from some crappy internet cafe in dirkadirkastan...or from across the street.

...I shit you not.

In case you missed it, Michael Phelps smoked some weed and people went crazy over it. As part of the fallout, Kellogg axed their deal with him. Now, here's the kicker: they're donating the boxes with him on it to a food bank:

San Francisco Food Bank officials say they're thrilled about a recent donation by Kellogg Co. of thousands of boxes of breakfast cereal.

And they're intrigued to note the boxes have Olympic athlete Michael Phelps' face on the front.

Apparently the only way to get billion-dollar food corporations to donate to the starving poor is for celebrities they endorse to smoke weed and publicly admit to doing so. Sounds like a good plan to me.

If it means that Kellogg will donate more food to homeless shelters and food banks (for once), then I think it's a good plan. As a result, I am now officially calling upon all current and future Kellogg-sponsored celebrities to smoke weed for the poor. I call it: "Potheads 4 Hunger."

Sure, we all know that weed tends to bring on the munchies, but isn't it paradoxically poetic that in the pangs of drug-induced hunger, we'd be curing real-world hunger? It doesn't harm the pot-smokers in the slightest (remember, it's impossible to overdose on weed), and it would result in helping to end world hunger. Plus, I actually like munching on Frosted Flakes when I'm stoned, so I'd be helping to offset the lost profits of Kellogg "donating" the celebrity pot smoker boxes to charity. It's win-win!

So I say to all celebrities: smoke pot while being endorsed by Kellogg, and you're doing your part to cure world hunger. Join Potheads 4 Hunger today!

Turns out Michael Phelps got suspended for hitting off of a bong. From the article:

...we decided to send a strong message to Michael because he disappointed so many people, particularly the hundreds of thousands of USA Swimming member kids who look up to him as a role model and a hero...

What? A role model and a hero? Are you serious?!!? More importantly, are you high? If you want your kid to take after a guy who's spending 6 hours a day swimming in a pool (since he was in his teens), eating like a fiend, and selling his soul to advertisers as his day job (i.e., "he's a role model"), well, perhaps you're stupid enough to believe he should be punished because he took a hit off a bong after "work."

From zee article:

The Legislature took on a somber tone Wednesday as lawmakers honored the family of a man who died in prison, only to have DNA testing show years later that he did not commit the rape he was convicted of. Tim Cole and his relatives for years claimed he was innocent in the rape of a Texas Tech University student in 1985. But until DNA from the crime scene was tested last year, no one else believed them.

Rape sucks, but one person's word against another should be avoided at all costs. Two reasons:

1. The accuser's word always outweighs the defendant's by default. See also: Duke lacrosse thing. Despite multiple people and substantial evidence to contrary, people still sided with the accuser by default.

2. The human mind is more likely to make mistakes in picking out the actual rapist out of fear of not picking one at all. It's kind of like how when a kid shoots up a school, the everyone frantically searches for a causal reason or something to blame-- even if it's incorrect, because not having a "root cause" is considerably scarier for everyone than blaming an arbitrary thing. I think the same thing frequently happens in rape: out of fear of not finding the attacker, the mind is more okay with finding the wrong one than finding none at all.

Think about it: if you're a rape victim, you really want to find the bastard and make him pay. The problem is that walking away empty-handed is, to make an understatement, less appealing than finding the guy that really did it. I mean, who wants to look over one's shoulder every night worried that "he's still out there?" As a result, I'd argue that it's more likely for a victim to make an honest mistake during a line-up by merely picking someone who looks close enough for their brain to be certain (for its own sake) that that's the person— even though it's not. Combined with the overall unreliability of eyewitness testimony, as a whole, and I'm sure this poor guy isn't the only one to have been wrongly convicted.

That said, it probably would have helped not to have been black in Lubbock, Texas in 1985. :P

God really does work in mysterious ways, doesn't he? Apparently Ann Coulter broke her jaw and has, as a result, had to have it wired shut. Change truly has come. :P

Seriously, though, I wonder what she'll do in the interim. Consider: her job consists, essentially, of pissing on anyone either not in the majority or not big business; so, losing her voice reduces her ability to work by half. No doubt in the meantime she'll write a book or two ostracizing gays, atheists, and/or democrats, while complaining that Christians are somehow persecuted despite being in the overwhelming majority. Nevertheless, she'll still make ends meet (and then some).

Still, I'm not the type to take glee in other people's misery, but I have to admit, this is very poetic nonetheless—someone who makes a living trading bigoted prose for a paycheck gets her mouth wired shut. But, at the end of the day, despite many people hating her guts, I still have to wish her a speedy and safe recovery. As much as liberals and many conservatives alike would like to see her locked up in some insane asylum, hyper-polarized, inherently wrong people are, believe it or not, valuable.

From psychotic PETA members spouting nonsense like "no animal experimentation" to psychotic evangelicals spouting nonsense like "god hates fags," viewpoints in the polar extremes serve a valuable purpose: to the rational among us, their faults help to emphasize why rational discourse and compromise truly is the best option. Idiots provide us with a frame of reference to making informed, rational choices, because they can be relied upon to give us the wrong answer the vast majority of the time. From there, the right answer is a lot easier to derive. Silencing Ann Coulter would be a great loss to us, because without knowing what's inherently wrong (i.e., the opposite of what she says is "right"), it becomes a lot more difficult to know what's actually right.

So on behalf of all the rational, sane people out there, Ann Coulter: get well soon. We need you to tell us what you think is wrong so that we know what's truly right.

Cheers. :P