November 16, 2010

Terror and Safety

I have no lead-in to this post. No build up to ease you in.

Because there was no lead-in for me. No easing into it.

I was sexually assaulted from the time I was five until I moved out of the house. At times, photographed.

It's taken me years of hard work to come to terms with what happened, but I have and I'm at peace with it. It shaped who I am and how I see the world ... but maybe not in the ways you think.

What I learned is that no matter what you do, how many precautions you take, no one is guaranteed safety in this life. This could be a really sad statement, but it's not. It's not that no one is safe, exactly, it's that we're not guaranteed safety.

There is being smart.
There is being stupid.
And there is being so damn afraid that you are no longer living.

And NONE of those guarantees safety.

I choose to live.

There are times when I don't take enough risk. But I try to be smart about it. Make sure that I'm living my life with a reasonable attempt at safety and risk and life.

And that is why I'm calling out the TSA screenings for what they are. Total bullshit. Security theatre. All for show.

People who want to blow up planes or buildings or shoot each other ... they will find ways to do so.

But there is a balance between how we protect ourselves and how we live.

Using millimeter wave to "photograph" our nekkid bodies is not guaranteed to keep us safe. There are ways to take a plane down that could bypass these screenings.

Using an invasive pat-down is not guaranteed to keep us safe.

I, personally, will not submit to the extra radiation of the scanners. One, after all the cancer tests I've been through, I don't need any extra radiation if I can avoid it. Two, I don't care how grainy or "not personally identifiable" the "photographs" are - I've been photographed nude against my will before and I will not do it again.

And the "enhanced" pat-down? I'm done with flashbacks now. Finally. I'm living a pretty normal life. And I'll be damned if I allow some stranger to touch me there for no damned reason. Feeling trapped, like I have no choice, but have to be fondled?

I know that to keep me, personally, safe, I can't submit to either the scanner or the pat-down.

And, since I'm "randomly" selected for "special" screening every time I go on any plane bigger than a puddle-jumper, I know that I can not fly until this blows over.

Until we as a nation come to our senses and remember that there is being smart, there is being stupid, and there is living.

I aim to live.

Posted by Red Monkey at 5:46 PM | Comments (5) | Never Underestimate the Power of Human Stupidity | Struggles | Stumble

September 28, 2010

Those People

"So you didn't go because of all those gay people?" Pause. Repeat. "Because of all those gay people?"

I stopped dead in the hallway at work this morning. I was hoping for context for this conversation spoken overly loud in order to carry over several cubicles to reach its intended recipient.

I saw the older man who said it. I saw another older man to whom the conversation was directed. Maybe there is context in which this was benign. Maybe there is a long-standing and familiar joke between these two which I am missing.

And truthfully, I would have ground to a halt and turned back and stared in disbelief had any number of words been substituted for the one I heard. Fat, retarded, pick-a-skin-colour, pick-a-nationality, pick-a-religion. The key to the phrasing was "those people." Whoever those people are.

You see, those people are my friends. They are my family. They are people about whom I care.

This is not about some state-mandated political correctness. This is about respect for the people around you.

You see, you don't know when a gay co-worker might be walking by. Or the father of a child with Down's Syndrome. Or the brother of a Jehovah's Witness. Or the aunt of a bi-racial child.

And your off-hand talk about how "that is so gay" or "geez, that policy is so retarded" when you don't mean disrespect to gays or those with mental disabilities affects people despite your intent.

Sure, people can be overly sensitive. I was once told I could not call my cat "special" or retarded despite the fact that he did have a vet's diagnosis of mental retardation/brain damage &endash; because a relative knew people who had that for real. No amount of explaining could make him see that I was using the word clinically, the same as I did for the cat who had cancer. I think that was a little over-sensitive of him &endash; but because I respect him, I simply don't refer to that cat's problems around that relative. Out of respect.

But all too often we don't think before we speak or tweet or write. We just mouth off and then act shocked when someone "decides" to take offense when we are not respectful.

I didn't take offense this morning. But that phrasing has haunted me all day, nonetheless. I didn't choose for it to do so, but it generates so very many questions. Is this someone who might become violent around people who are different? Or worse, someone who just snipes behind the back, trying to undermine everyone else's opinions of anyone he thinks might be gay? It's so easy to fire someone just for being gay. It's not like marital status or skin colour or religion. Your employer has to come up with a better reason than those things if he wants to fire you. But if you're gay? Hey, we don't like "those people" here. Don't bother coming back.

Given the tiny bit of context I had, this is probably nothing to worry about. Probably.

But the uncertainty remains.

Those people.

.

And before I could hit publish, the ineffable Angie had posted a story which, quite honestly, was so related, I had to link to it here. Gay Cupcakes Are So Gay.

And, disturbingly, others on Twitter started pointing out multiple similar stories or issues with morons having issues with "Teh Gays."

Posted by Red Monkey at 4:39 PM | Comments (5) | Never Underestimate the Power of Human Stupidity | Struggles | Stumble

August 19, 2010

Avoiding Responsibility

Recently, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said he thought, "Young people may one day have to change their names in order to escape their previous online activity." (BBC link)

Honestly, this is the most asinine comment to come out of Schmidt's mouth yet.

First, legally changing your name to avoid your past does NOT fricking work. Most employers for anything better than a minimum wage job run a background check. This will automatically bring up any previous names. And, quite frankly, I can see where if this did become a trend, many companies just noting a name change and assuming the person had something to hide, or had been irresponsible and was therefore a risk to hire - without doing the research to determine if this was true or not.

In essence, it could easily become the second line of tossing out resumes - the first being errors in the resume or cover letter.

Secondly, what does this teach people about personal responsibility? Oh, okay, what you do as a juvenile doesn't matter at all. You are free of any consequences ....

STUPID! That kind of bullshit thinking has been leading us down a very nasty little path for quite some time now. Now, I'm not saying that everything you do as a child should haunt you for the rest of your life, because it shouldn't. You have to make mistakes to learn and you really do need to do some stupid shit to learn sometimes. Often, that can make you a better person. But it brings about change in someone because there are consequences, sometimes quite long-reaching ones.

If we were to ever put a system in place upon which you became a "new" person without researchable history at 18 or 21, I think the consequences on society would be alarming.

Why not be proactive? Why not TEACH children and young people today what is and isn't good to share with the world? Why shouldn't adults be teaching younger people this now?

Lame, Mr. Schmidt. Short-sighted and LAME.

But any more, I don't expect much from the CEO of Google. It seems once a company reaches a certain "tipping point" in size, estimated worth and popularity (of use, not how much people "like" it) ... it becomes short-sighted, somewhat stupid ... and generally speaking, somewhere between evil and short on concern for the people they claim to serve/service.

Posted by Red Monkey at 5:46 AM | Comments (2) | Never Underestimate the Power of Human Stupidity | Stumble

July 13, 2010

Snacks

So, someone who'd once worked at the company where I am now moved to Korea. I believe it was supposed to be a one or two year deal (maybe a teaching gig), but they've decided they like it there. Anyhow, this guy came to visit and brought a slew of funny Korean foods.

Now by funny, I don't mean, "Oh look what weird shit they eat," instead I mean the packaging. There were dick sticks, for instance. Also, nude balls. Then there was fun stuff like coffee gum.

I tried one of the sticks. They weren't bad and most everyone was munching on them, but I'd expected savory, not sweet - and nothing trips my Asperger's-like tendencies faster than tasting something sweet when I expect savory. Then my co-worker said there were cheese sticks. I was excited - that would get the sweet taste out of my mouth!

So, I happily went over and snagged a cheese stick. I thought maybe it would be kind of spicy, but was preparing myself for mild and perhaps sweet. It looked like the small version of one of those Kraft cheese tube things - or Hickory Farms makes them too. It seemed a little soft, but the Kraft squeeze cheese I remember from when I was little was actually squirted out of one of those tubes, so I wasn't too surprised. I squished a little bit out, seemed okay ... and then I tried it.

Mistake.

That was the nastiest, vilest - UGH. I couldn't quite place the taste and decided there was soy in it. Well, there was soy, true. It was fish cheese.

FISH CHEESE

Lest you think I am joking, another co-worker found this:

FISH CHEESE

I'm gagging just thinking about it again.

Apparently some people in Korea use these on their iPhones instead of a stylus since many of them wear gloves all the time.

Remind me to NEVER EVER use someone's touch screen in Korea ... blergh!

Posted by Red Monkey at 7:44 PM | Comments (0) | Never Underestimate the Power of Human Stupidity | Stumble

June 10, 2010

hOily Whale - desktops

By popular request, I have two sizes of computer desktop version of the poor beleaguered Fail Whale for those who are interested.

Some have asked, and there are various discussions about t-shirts as well. If you are interested in a t-shirt, please leave a comment below.

1680x1050 Desktop
1280x1024 Desktop

Posted by Red Monkey at 5:34 PM | Comments (5) | Design | Never Underestimate the Power of Human Stupidity | Sketches | Stumble

April 27, 2010

California, Gizmodo, Bloggers ... and Theft

The story goes like this: dude leaves his cell phone in a bar. Guy on the next seat over sees it laying there. Whacks the dude on the stool next to it and says, "Hey, your buddy left his phone." Second dude wasn't there with the guy who left the phone, but he picks it up anyway and begins fiddling with it. He doesn't turn it in to the bartender, which, to be honest, would have been my first thought. It's a so-called smartphone, so he starts messing with it. Takes it home with him. Laughs at the guy's Facebook page, etc, etc, etc.

Now the deal is, in California, it's illegal to just make off with found items. You are supposed to hand things you find over to the cops. If, within three years the owner hasn't claimed it, then maybe you have a claim. In a state heavy with small and expensive prototypes ... this seems quite reasonable to me. Honestly, most places could do with a law like that, but of course, the cops are crazy-overburdened most places and don't have time with every Dick and Jane who can't keep track of their damn Crackberries.

Actually, to be even more honest, such a law shouldn't even be freaking necessary because if it's not yours and you find it ... it's still not yours.

So anyhow, little Mr. Second Dude takes this nifty new phone home with him. Maybe he's always wanted one and he just assumes he'll be able to register it with another cell provider and use it even though this phone is pretty famously locked into one provider. Maybe he's mostly good intentioned and he just wants to play with it before contacting the guy and returning it. You know, keep it a couple of days, rack up some calls and some games, have a little fun ... teach the guy a lesson.

But when he gets up the next morning, it's bricked. Huh. Weird. It's been remotely disabled. Gee, that's what my partner did when she lost her cell phone on the ski slopes - called the provider and had it disabled and then registered as lost/stolen so that no one could re-activate it.

Dude does more investigation. Decides that he has a prototype phone. Worth some bucks. So he starts contacting ... well, we know he contacted two tech blogs. One turned him down. This, to me, seems the ethical response. Having possession of this phone is not the same as a few surreptitious photos. There are legal considerations in California ... and certainly paying the mysterious dude who "found" the prototype could be construed as illegal even if your ethics are shaky.

The other blog bought it for $5000. Bragged about buying it. Took the phone apart, filmed everything and then, knowing at this point that they had a genuine prototype (unless someone was punking them), they published everything in a rather flamboyant, gloating ... and completely unprofessional manner.

Apple requested their item back. Gizmodo gave it back. They'd published the name of the dude who lost the phone. They made fun of him. They "defended" him and asked Apple not to fire him ... but they did it in a way to put the guy in the worst possible light.

There have been claims that they tried to return the phone ... but the beer garden where it was found was never contacted. Instead, they supposedly called the Apple switchboard. Smallest amount of ass-covering they could do that would buy them the time they needed to tear the toy apart.

The deal is, this is not journalism no matter what Gizmodo thinks. Perhaps if they'd stuck to the pertinent facts: the tech details only ... maybe. There's still some sticking points of California law, but maybe they'd be able to play the journalism card.

No, instead they acted like a gloating junior high bully - "Well, lookit what we found. And you can't do nothing about it because we took it apart and photographed it and where's your secrecy now, dork?" And to further add to their gloating bully routine, they then made fun of the guy who lost it. They published his name, they used pictures from his Flickr stream and talked about his Facebook account.

They pulled a Nelson and gleefully shouted, "HA, HA," at Apple, at Gray Powell ... and at California law. Because they thought they qualified as journalists and could do such things.

Now, the police have gone into the blogger's home, removed computers, servers, USB disks, etc, etc, etc, because they suspect a felony has occurred. Gizmodo bragging they paid $5000 for the device made this a felony since it's over $990 in value.

There are complaints that Apple is behind this. That somehow Apple is picking on a poor journalistic blogger.

I call bullshit on that.

1) I don't care if Apple did ask the police (or request the special agency) to investigate. Their prototype went missing. By California law, it is still theirs for three years. There is no finders, keepers playground rule here. No one had the right to sell the prototype. At the very least, a crime was committed when the phone was sold.
2) Gizmodo bought a device from someone whom they knew had no right to sell it - if it was legitimately an Apple prototype.
3) Gizmodo bought a device from someone whom they knew had no right to sell it - based on the story they were told. Either it was an iPhone that didn't belong to "Mr. Second Dude" or it was a prototype. Either way, it as not his to sell. Or Gizmodo's to purchase. It comes dangerously close to buying stolen property.
4) After having bought the phone, they took it apart in order to verify that it was, in fact, Apple's prototype and then publish all the proprietary information.

This is not a journalist protecting a source. This is purchasing something they had no right to purchase. This is not purchasing information. This is purchasing a lost/stolen item.

If this had happened to Microsoft, whom I cannot stand, I would probably not be as ticked, I'll be honest. But I would also hope that Gizmodo would be still be under investigation. That the police would be looking for the dishonest and greedy jerk who walked off with the prototype.

Look, if the phone was on the floor and in pieces and no one remembered who sat there, I might be sympathetic to Gizmodo publishing pictures. It's still illegal. It's still wrong, but it's a little more understandable.

But knowing who owned the phone (the Apple engineer's name even) ... and NOT returning it ... and then paying five grand for it and STILL not returning it.

That's not journalism. Gizmodo has done nothing but prove that bloggers aren't necessarily journalists. And in this case, Gizmodo has proven they are unethical, amoral bullies. To now cry because the police have "broken down their doors" - what did you expect when you broke the law and gloated about it? It's time to man up and admit what you did was wrong. Take responsibility for your shady shenanigans and then shut up.

.

(Disclaimer: there are plenty of bloggers with the ethics and practices of good journalists ... I am NOT painting all bloggers with Gizmodo's brush. But I think this does show that as a category bloggers does not automatically equal journalist.)

Posted by Red Monkey at 5:37 AM | Comments (0) | Never Underestimate the Power of Human Stupidity | Stumble