Long Live The Newspaper

Are newspapers still in trouble? I think that they are, but I haven't heard much about it lately. I have noticed that newspapers are kind of becoming a little more Internet-y, though. I guess it's their way of trying to keep up. I can't say I don't appreciate their effort, but we have the Internet for that sort of stuff.

Here's a correction that the New York Times felt the need to make note of. I really don't know that any of us would have noticed the error, nor given a fat rat's ass about it. But for those of you who are really sticklers for things like the origin of the name "Orcrist the Goblin Cleaver" (which was apparently what some Mets pitcher named one of his bats), then this correction is for you.

Coming to us courtesy of the Salt Lake Tribune (and my dear friend Julie on Facebook), we have a little blurb about a woman who used to be a stripper, but now does "Pole Dancing For Jesus". I'm pretty sure that she was dancing for Jesus when she was a stripper, but at that time, it was pronounced "Hay-Seuss".

In need for an invisible man? That's right. An invisible man. According to the newspaper announcement/advertisement/crackpot below, one is for hire. And yes, you bet your ass that I have emailed him and inquired as to his location, his rates and his sanity. I'm waiting to hear back. Feel free to send him your own email with your own requests. We can compare quotes.

Today I learned that the Yiddish language Ultra-Orthodox daily newspaper called Der Tzitung felt that their policy of keeping photos of women out of their publication (for fear of sexually exciting Hasidic men, of course) took precedence over the presence of Hillary Clinton in the photo. So they got rid of her. Personally, I think that our way of getting rid of bin Laden was much more impressive than their way of getting rid of Hillary Clinton. I also think that our getting rid of bin Laden was much more necessary than erasing Hillary Clinton from a historic moment. Ok, then.

The picture below isn't from a newspaper, but it's in black and white and I'm trying to extend the length of this post, so it's being included. From 1982, an advertisement for a 10MB hard disk drive for the extremely outlandish price of $3,495 (which I believe was also the MSRP for the Yugo when it came out).

And finally, not because it has anything to do with newspapers, but just because it's been bugging me and I'm hoping that I will be able to find some answers. If anyone knows who the shirt below is made by, I'd really appreciate it if you could let me know. Thanks.

Sphere: Related Content

The Unlikely, Felonious Candidate

As Scott pointed out in my post the other day about the debacle that is Alvin Greene in South Carolina, I left out the best part. That part being that the aforementioned Mr. Greene was charged with one felony count of, what the AP reports to be, "...showing obscene Internet photos to a University of South Carolina student, then talking about going to her room at a university dorm." Now, I don't know if that's the official charge (it seems rather lengthy) or if that's just what happened, but the bottom line is that our buddy, Clem, here, is the nominee for a Senate seat and does weird things in his spare time. Allegedly.

Let's look into the accusation a little more closely. Again referencing the story over at the AP, it would seem that a one 19-year old Camille McCoy, who is described as a "rising sophomore at the University of South Carolina", alleges that while in a computer lab, Greene sat down next to her "...and asked her to look at his screen, which showed a pornographic website." First of all, what in the world is a "rising sophomore"? Is that supposed to imply that she will one day be a junior after she "rises" in the ranks? Seriously, what's up with that little moniker there, AP guys? A rising sophomore. OK, fine. Call her what you want.

But second, what's with the being able to view porn in the university computer labs? Most of the people I know can't even view Facebook from work because their fascist employers have blocked access to it (not to mention anything streaming, which sounds like it would probably include porn sites). You know what college kids want to do in computer labs? Look at porn, that is correct. You know what college kids want to do when they're not in computer labs? Look at porn, that is correct. You know what half of the Internet consists of? Porn, that is correct. Now, I'm not blaming the university, but I am suggesting that they block the porn.

But back to the allegations (which I have no reason to disbelieve that he actually did, as he seems dim enough to have pulled such a stunt). Who does that? You sit down next to some chick and pull yourself up some good ol' computer porn and say, "Look at this! Look at it!" (I'm not certain of the specific vernacular that was used. I'm merely paraphrasing.) That's a strange ranger right there. Granted, the mascot of the University of South Carolina is the gamecock, it's still no excuse for this sort of behavior.

The article goes on to document that, according to Miss McCoy, "I said, 'That's offensive,' and he sat there laughing...It was very disgusting." Hold on there, sweetheart. You look at his screen o'porn and you said, "That's offensive"? No, you didn't! What 18-year old would say it like that? You mean to tell me that you didn't call him a pervert? You didn't shout out "Oh, my God!" (Or "OMG!" as kids your age are pretty into the whole texting thing.) I find it difficult to believe that you said, "That's offensive." I'm not saying it wasn't offensive. It certainly sounds offensive. I'm just saying I highly doubt that's how you handled it.

She goes on to state that "He said, 'Let's go to your room now.' It was kind of scary. He's a pretty big boy. He could've overpowered me." Could have overpowered you? Right there in the middle of the computer lab? Granted, the kinds of folks that are usually hanging around the computer labs aren't exactly your broad shouldered, strapping lads or anything like that. But I find it hard to believe that's what went through your head at the time. Sounds like she handles things very pleasantly in her little world.

I found this next part to be the most interesting, yet it's the part that's getting the least attention. "McCoy, who is from Charleston, said she was stunned to learn that the same man she later identified from a photo lineup was running for office, much less had won a party's nomination." First of all, why do we need to know that she is from Charleston? Who cares? Why tell me inconsequential information, AP? Why? I know, I know! It's because the media sucks. I get that. But usually it's because they're not putting in enough information, rather than inserting crap that isn't even relevant to the story. Was the author of this piece under some sort of minimum word count requirement or something?

But that's not the most interesting part (it's merely the most annoying). If she was identifying him from a photo lineup, where did the police get his photo? If he was arrested before, that would be a pretty good reason for the cops to already have a photo of him, yes? I would think so. So ,how come I'm not hearing about what else he may have done before his potentially storied career as a US Senator? Oh, right. Back to the media sucks. Never mind.

This is a very strange thing to be accused of. It's an even stranger thing to do. It's unfortunate that no one had ever heard of this guy (before he won the nomination) because if they had, perhaps background checks would have been done and people would have wanted to vote for someone that they had never heard of without a pending felony charge as opposed to who they did vote for, someone that they had never heard of with a pending felony charge. And as weird as it sounds, this guy is pretty weird. He doesn't seem real bright, either. But he's the nominee for the Democratic Party for a Senate seat in South Carolina. U-S-A! U-S-A!!

Sphere: Related Content

One Of The Worst Ideas Ever

Some things are just inexplicable to me. I mean, I can understand how one person can screw something up. That's easy enough. It's only one person. One person might not see right away that something is a horrible idea. But it's when something is an absolutely horrible idea and there is more than one individual involved in the decision making process that it just really confuses me. How is it that more than one person can think that something is a good idea when it so clearly is not?

Here's the scoop: Over at the AP we learn about a practice that went on at the Lower Merion School District in Philadelphia. See, they issued laptops to their students. (There's a high school that issues laptops to students? That alone was news to me. Don't get me wrong. I think it's a fine idea. I was just a little surprised by it is all.) But in the past couple of years, about 80 of the laptops had gone missing. It's unclear exactly how many laptops were issued to begin with, but what is clear is that they couldn't find 80 of them and they needed to figure out where they were. But that's OK because the computers all had a tracking program in them that was activated and the webcams in the laptops took over 56,000 pictures. Wait. What now?

Correct. In some desperate attempt to locate these 80 missing laptops, this tracking program was activated. When activated, wherever the laptops were, as long as they were on I'm assuming, they would take a picture once every fifteen minutes. Now, where are the laptops going to be the majority of the time? I'm guessing that they're going to be where the kids spend most of their time. Like in their house. In their rooms. Places where there really shouldn't be secret tracking programs taking pictures of them, I'm guessing!

Seriously, how many people had to have been aware that this was a program and a procedure that were going to be implemented with the intention of being used at some point? Clearly, there had to have been several people involved in this process. In fact, the AP article said that there were TEN people who were authorized to request that the programs be activated. TEN?! How did they all think that this was a good idea? I mean, one person can come up with the idea. I get that. But do you mean to tell me that NO ONE else ever said anything like, "Uh, I don't know if we can even legally do that."? Really?! That would probably be the first thing that I would think. OK, it'd be second. It'd be the second thing right after "Oh, hell no!"

And that's the part I don't get. It's such an unbelievably bad idea. That seems obvious. But yet, somehow, some way, it got done. Who are these people? Who thought that this was going to be OK? All at least of them? The school district is claiming that none of the photos taken were inappropriate, meaning that no one was fully undressed in any of the photos. But if you're asking me, just taking the photos at all is inappropriate, so it's really hard to define that to mean something that is really pretty much after the fact. We're just surrounded by stupidity, that's all there is to it. But it still scares the hell out of me.

Sphere: Related Content

Be Glad That Cars Are Not Like Computers

The following is a rather amusing bit of humor that has been circling the pipes and tubes of the Internet for a while now, but somehow found its way into my inbox yet again. Didn't matter. It's still pretty funny. (And I'm not attributing the quote that is supposedly said by Bill Gates to Bill Gates. I don't know if he really said that or if it was just a lead-in to the part that's funny. Full disclosure, that's all. Oh, and while I'm at it, I haven't seen this particular bit attributed to anyone as being the individual who first made these these ingenious observations. And I'm too tired to look right now, so again, just full disclosure there.)

At a recent computer exposition, Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated: "If General Motors had kept up with the technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."

In response to Bill's comments, GM issued a press release stating: "If General Motors had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

• For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.
  
  
• Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.
  
  
• Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull over to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason, you would simply accept this.
• Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.
• Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive -- but would run on only five percent of the roads.
  
  
• The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "General Protection Fault" warning light.
  
  
• The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying.
  
  
• Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
  
  
• Every time GM introduced a new car, car buyers would have to learn to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.
  
  
• And, for some inexplicable reason, you'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off.
  

Sphere: Related Content

Where Don't You Want To Go Today?

Not that I was looking for vindication or anything, but it's nice to know that I wasn't the only one who thought that Microsoft's ad with Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Gates (munching churros after shopping for pleather, size 10 Conquistador shoes at Shoe Circus) was absolutely, positively craptastic. What's not nice to know is that some people actually enjoyed it. Those are people who will believe the hype about anything. It doesn't matter what it is, if it's hyped enough before it actually happens, then to a certain group of people (the soft-headed, the gullible, Floridians, etc.) it will be the most amazing thing that they have ever seen. I blame those guys who made The Blair Witch Project. Duped the whole damn country with that promo.

But back to Tom Bill and Jerry. After the 90-second craptacular had aired, so many people were scratching their heads and thinking, "WTF was that?" that Microsoft released a statement that was supposed to explain WTF that was. And while it did explain WTF is was, it did not do a very good job of explaining WTF they were thinking. (Remember: $300 million in advertising for an ad campaign where one of the ads ends with Bill Gates shaking his tuckus like a geeky rabbit. That being said, I think that "WTF were they thinking?" is a totally appropriate question.)

(By the way, if you're expecting this explanation to be some sort of revelation, you're going to be really disappointed.)

The statement from Microsoft starts out with, "....some may wonder what Jerry Seinfeld helping Bill Gates pick out a new pair of shoes has to do with software. (SOME? You think only some were wondering that? No wonder you guys need help.) The answer, in the classic Seinfeld sense of the word, is nothing. (Wait. What?) Nevertheless, the spot is the first and most visible sign of an ambitious effort by Microsoft’s Windows business to reconnect with consumers around the globe." Um, huh. Well, I don't rightly know what to say about that. Other than, are you freaking kidding me?!

Picking out the shoes has nothing to do with software, but "nevertheless" it's the first sign that you are trying to reconnect with people? So, it doesn't matter what "the sign" is, as long as we know that you mean well, that's good enough? I've got news for you, Microsoft. It's not good enough. It's not even good. And I think we've had enough. Please tell us you've blown through that $300 million already so we won't have to be subjected to more of this ridiculousness. No such luck.

The statement from Microsoft is rather long. I'm thinking that if they had made their commercial about something instead of nothing, they wouldn't need a statement. I thought that's what the ad was supposed to do...make a statement. But apparently all the ad is supposed to do is cause people to get online (probably with their Mac) and try to figure out WTF they just saw. Completely opposite of most of the ads that I see. They're usually self explanatory and don't need CliffsNotes.

"The new campaign will highlight how Windows has become an indispensible part of the lives of a billion people around the globe -- not only on PCs but also now online and via mobile devices." Yep, they're right. That commercial had nothing at all to do with that. And thank goodness it didn't. I'd hate to think that crap was highlighting how "indispensible" Microsoft was in my life. You know what I DO find to be "indispensible", Microsoft? That's right, Spell Check! It's "indispensable", not "indispensible" like it appears in your carefully crafted PressPass Statement. (You're not doing yourself any favors here! You already have the non-mainstream comedian guy, a couple of churros and size 10 Conquistadors, which run tight! Clearly, you have your hands full with that debacle right there, you don't need to add spelling errors to the mix!)

"These initial ads are the first in a creative campaign....designed to spark a conversation about the Windows brand – a conversation that will evolve as the campaign progresses, but will always be marked by humor and humanity." Oh, the conversation has already evolved! From anticipation to dumbfoundedness. That's evolution for ya, baby. As far as the humor goes? Not so much. But, the humanity? Oh, the humanity! (I couldn't resist.)

A one Bill Veghte, who is the Senior Vice President for Microsoft Online Services & Windows Business Group., says, "Windows is entering a new chapter in our history. We’re renewing our commitment to consumers and working with our partners to deliver quality and value on the PC, across devices and across the Web.” Oh, yeah, you're definitely entering a new chapter in your history all right. I think this chapter will be called, "The Beginning of the End". Or maybe, "We Should Have Quit While We Were Ahead". Even, "Is Google Hiring?".

Microsoft also said that they were going to be "working with Circuit City and Best Buy to roll out "Windows-branded sales environments and store-within-a-store concepts" to compete with Apple's highly successful stores." So you guys finally realized that Apple might be onto something with that concept, eh? And you rolled out these ads with Jerry Seinfeld to compete against the "I'm a Mac" commercials of Apple's, too, right? OK, you're going to want to pay a little bit more attention to how they do things if you can't think of anything on your own, Microsoft. See, because the difference between the "I'm a Mac" ads and the "I like churros" ads is that the "I'm a Mac" ads are good.

I am predicting, at the very least, a small disaster. Not quite in the "What could possibly go wrong?" category just yet, but close. Maybe I'd put it in the "Hilarity did not ensue" category at this point. Because right now, that ad highlights what Microsoft is concerned about; that being that they're out of touch with the consumer. And while that commercial didn't exactly scream that they were in touch with the consumer, it was a completely unintentional reflection of how a lot of their products work. They work in a way that makes sense to those who work for Microsoft. The rest of the public, while not morons, gets a little frustrated that things just aren't straight forward and simple.

Again, I'm holding off any more judgment until I've seen at least one more episode of Bill and Jerry's Excellent Adventures. But if that one sucks too, there will be no mercy.

Sphere: Related Content

Microsoft Is About Nothing?

Microsoft finally decided that they needed to come up with some catchy advertising. You know, in light of the Google and the Apple that are taking over the world. Granted, the Google boys don't need advertising (they've already infiltrated our brains somehow and reprogrammed them to always search with Google). And Apple, well, Apple has the Mac vs. PC ads which are hilarious. Those are going to be hard to beat. Microsoft was thinking the same thing. After all, the Apple ads are hip, they're cool, they're funny, they're new, they're relevant AND they make sense. You're going to need some pretty powerful ammunition to go up against a formula like the one that Apple thought up. And how hard could that really be? I mean, their idea was just to have two guys SAY that they were computers and we, the oh-so skeptical public, would just believe them! (How stupid do they think we are? Oh. Right. Never mind.) How are you going to top THAT?

Well, Microsoft didn't just get to the top by accident. No, Microsoft got to the top because it was the only computer operating system out there that didn't suck when it was founded. (And when I say "only" I mean "the best one out of the two that were available at the time". Hey, take what you can get, I always say.) That aside, they came up with an advertising campaign that they must have been positive would be a winner. They forked over $300 million for it, in case you were wondering how certain they were about their idea. And who were they entrusting to be the face of this campaign? Who was it that was going to represent "new" and "hip" and "cool", three things that Microsoft is not always associated with? Who? Why, Jerry Seinfeld, that's who. Wait. What?

Jerry Seinfeld? OK, look, I loved "Seinfeld". I loved Jerry. And the whole gang! But even though "Seinfeld" ran for nine years and was one of the highest rated shows in TV history, the last episode aired on May 14, 1998. That's over ten years ago. Microsoft hired Jerry Seinfeld? Geez. What? Was Milton Berle not available? That doesn't seem very "cool, hip and new" if you're asking me.

You know what else doesn't seem very "cool, hip and new"? That's right, the first commercial starring Jerry Seinfeld and none other than Bill Gates as well. Now, a lot of people are sadly unaware that Bill Gates is a very funny guy. Extremely funny. He is also a fairly decent actor. And that's a "fairly decent actor" that is only partially being compared to other geeky, tech-y software guys. Gates is a "fairly decent actor" when compared to a lot of people. But even a freaking great actor couldn't have done much with this story line...and it was a minute and a half! Ninety seconds of complete confusion. I wondered if maybe they had accidentally aired some of the stuff that they decided wouldn't be any good. (If they didn't, they might want to think about saying that they did. You know, to avoid looking any more like jackasses.)

Now, the premise of Jerry Seinfeld's show was that it was "a show about nothing". This is "a commercial about nothing". It's the exact same premise. You watch it. You are expecting something to happen. Nothing does. There is talking. It's about nothing. Next thing you know, the damn thing is over and you don't know what you've just seen! The only difference between the commercial and Jerry's show was that when the show was over, you knew that whatever it was you just watched, you enjoyed. With the commercial? Eh, not so much. Here, you can see for yourself how lame it is.

Basically, Jerry is walking through a mall, mall-fare churro in hand, when he spots Bill buying shoes at Shoe Circus discount shoes. He runs inside and ends up helping fit Bill for a pair of "pleather" shoes known as "the Conquistador". He has to get a size larger than 10 because in the Conquistador, "they run tight". And for some reason, it seems as though that nugget of information is either well known or important in some unknown way as we witness a Hispanic family staring through the window, watching this shoe fitting taking place and knowing that it's The Conquistador and that "they run tight." They seem either very interested or very concerned. One of those. Or they just wonder where he got the oh-so tasty churro.

Bill buys his pleather Conquistadors and presents his Shoe Circus Clown Card at checkout. While walking out to the parking lot, they basically use dialogue from a Seinfeld episode where Jerry asks Elaine what she gets if she fills her submarine punch card up and she responds, "Free sub." It was the same, except that Jerry asked Bill what he got with his Clown Card and he responded "Clown points." You know, for $300 million, I think I'd have to ask for original material, but that could just be me.

Then, still walking through the parking lot, both munching churros, Jerry asks Bill if our computers will be "moist and chewy like cake, so we can just eat while we're working." Bill doesn't respond, so Jerry tries again with, "If it's yes, give me a signal. Adjust your shorts or something." Cue the camera shot from behind as they're still walking. It is then that we see Bill do a little booty shake and just keep right on walking as Jerry does the lower fist pump and cries out, "I knew it!" Then cut to the Microsoft logo. The end. Wait. What? The WHAT?! END?

Correct. The end. That's it. No products. No hype. No hint. Just two guys and one of them has a wedgie. I don't even think that you even saw a computer at all in the whole thing! Am I supposed to run out and buy a churro? I'm so confused.

I can't imagine that's all they got for $300 million. And while I'm not holding by breath in anticipation of the next commercial that, perhaps, sheds some light on WTF is going on here, I would like to see more. At the very least, I'd like to see something else because that ad was crappier than Windows ME.

Look, I know Bill Gates is a smart guy. And I know he's a smart guy who hires other smart guys. I just hope he was smart enough to hire smart advertising people. Because really, the way I'm looking at this right now, I'm not so sure if associating "Microsoft" with "My underwear are riding up my ass" is really the direction you want to go in. (It's certainly not the direction you want your underwear to go in.)

SIDE NOTE: Bill Gates is a great guy and he, along with his wife, have founded The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which is a spectacular organization doing charity work to help reduce inequity around the world.

SIDE NOTE 2: That picture of Bill Gates on his Clown Club Card? Yeah, that's his mugshot photo from when he was arrested on reckless driving charges on December 13, 1977 for a second time in New Mexico after speeding in his Porsche, running a stop sign and driving without a license. I find it amusing.

Sphere: Related Content

Mac, PC or WTF?

With the Presidential election less than a mere 140 days away (Good God, shoot me now), I still don't think we've had a really close look at the candidates yet. I mean, there's been plenty of ridiculous dirt slinging (mostly via online) in Barack's direction a la "He's a Muslim". (He's NOT a Muslim, by the way. Look, if you don't want to vote for Barack, don't vote for him because he's a socialist. Don't not vote for him because you think he's a Muslim. At least if you don't vote for him because he's a socialist, at least then you'll sound informed and intelligent about the whole dealio, instead of sounding like an ignorant jackass if you say you didn't vote for him because he's Muslim; which, just to clarify again, he is NOT a Muslim. ) Not a whole lot of talk about John McCain, however. A little bit of talk about his younger, very hot, chairwoman of Anheuser-Busch wife (Young? Hot? All the beer you can drink? Where do I sign up to get me one of those?), but not a lot about him. Well, a little about him.

What do we know about Grandpa John McCain? We know he's older than most Presidential candidates. (We know he's older than most people (mentioned in the Bible).) We know (or we should know) that the "Hilton" that he spent five years in over there during the Vietnam War came with the sort of room service that was of the torturing nature. That's about it, really. I don't know a lot about where he stands on a lot of the issues . I don't know a lot about his career. And I don't know a lot about him personally. I do know that when I am looking for information about him, that I'm trying to find info that will allow me to make a determination as to whether or not I think that he is "too old" to be President. And if "too old" is "too vague", how about if I refine that to be "someone who is going to be in touch with the needs of the people of the country"? Better? Good.

So far, my information quest hasn't turned up a whole lot that doesn't lean in the "too old" direction. It has turned up various items that seem to show him as a personable guy with a sense of humor and also as an individual who is absolutely, 100% in full control of his faculties and completely sane. All of that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to be OK with everything about the guy, because I am not. In fact, there's one HUGE thing that I am just way not OK with.

Somewhere around when Super Tuesday was (yes, I know it was a Tuesday! Thanks for that. I have no idea what month.), Politico.com, for Yahoo! News, interviewed some of the potential Presidential candidates and asked them, "PC or Mac?" And if you're asking me, that's a much better line of questioning than "Boxers or briefs?" (Because really, where is the "Boxers or briefs?" inquisition going to go when we're asking female candidates? "G-string or Jockey?" "Tampons or pads?" I shudder at the very thought.)

They asked the question of Ron Paul (who is a year older than Uncle John), Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and John McCain. Ron Paul was a PC guy. Mitt Romney was a PC guy who would use a Mac because his sons do. Mike Huckabee (who did an unintentionally hilarious video for YouTube to introduce himself to America) was a PC guy as well. And John Methuselah McCain? John McCain said, and I quote, "Neither. I am an illiterate who has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance that I can get." (That sound you hear is my screaming and beating my head up against a wall. And not for the usual reasons, either.) Are you freaking kidding me?

Neither?! Neither?! Is the man from the Stone Age? Does he live next to a guy named Barney? Does he ride a horse to work? Has anyone seen his feet? Does he have shoes on? Neither?!?! WTF?!

Now, granted, I am currently residing smack dab in the middle of the birthplace of the technology industry, in San Jose, CA. (We might be a little geeky, but if it weren't for us, y'all would be cuddling up to John McCain right now to see how he manages to get all of the words so legible with that hammer and chisel when he chips out memos in marble.) We can get a little, um, excessive with our tech and our tech products. But come on! Not even email? Not even reading the news? Not even pretending to read the news while you look for porn? None of that, John?

I don't know if I can have a President with his finger on the button if he doesn't even know which button it is or what it does and has to go and find his wife to help him!! If you are under (and I'll be generous here) forty and learn of this phenomenon, you're going to be in a daze all day long. I was! (Shuffling around, muttering to myself, "Neither. Neither? How is that possible? How does he know what's up next in his Netflix queue? How does he watch Obama Girl on YouTube? Oh, my God! That means he doesn't read this blog!!" And then I passed out.)

Here's the video of McCain admitting that he doesn't use a computer. (In essence, he's also admitting that he walked uphill, in the snow, to school every day. BOTH ways!) Make up your own mind. But if you're not going to vote for McCain, don't not vote for him because he's old. Don't vote for him because he can't use a computer.

Sphere: Related Content

Micro-Deposits = Macro Time On Your Hands

If you've ever set up some sort of an account online that deals with cash (specifically, eTrade and/or Charles Schwab) you know how it goes. You give them every piece of information about you from the time that you were born and most of the days in between. Sometime after you have "securely" transmitted all of your information (including the middle name of your 3rd grade teacher and what you had for your birthday dinner when you were 11) you will have your account. But it won't be activated until you can prove to someone (the Internet, I'm guessing) that you can access that account. That is, you're not going to be able to get your money (and I'm sure you'll be making millions off of that Nigeria thing any day now) unless you can get into the account. So most of these institutions that set up these accounts make a micro-deposit into your account. "Micro-deposit" is the cutesy term (that really isn't) for "pittance". They deposit a small amount of money into the account that is usually less than a dollar, but apparently, sometimes more than that and up to a couple of dollars. Then you look at the account balance and report how much money is in the account by sending the company an email or releasing a carrier pigeon or something. Seems simple right? What could possibly go wrong?

Michael Largent is what could possibly go wrong. Largent, 22, from Plumas Lake in California, had an idea. If he could open a lot of accounts and get a lot of micro-deposits, he would eventually have a lot of macro-cash, of which he could then pile up and roll around in like Scrooge McDuck, top hat and all! So Largent set about the task of opening over 58,000 fake brokerage accounts and just pilfering the micro-deposits. If you're wondering what that amounts to in US dollars, it comes out to over $50,000 in just over 6 months. And I'm not trying to quibble here, but that seems like an awful lot of work. Work....work....hey, if you "work" at a real "job" don't they give you "money" for that as well? If one was going to do this much "work", wouldn't one just go get a "job" so that, in the long run, one doesn't get "arrested"? You would think, wouldn't you? Yeah, well, you would and I would, but Mikey there wouldn't. And didn't.

So dude wrote a computer script that would open these accounts with fake names. For the names, rather than take the extra time to make something up he decided to go with the names of cartoon characters. (Hey, he was pretty busy with all of the fraud scheming to get overly creative. And I just explained how time consuming it all must be, he's just trying to save himself some illegal activity, that's all.) Wait. What?

Some of the names that Largent used to open brokerage accounts are:

• Hank Hill - "The King of the Hill" patriarch
  
  
• Speed Apex - (He opened 11,385 Charles Schwab accounts under this name. Hmmm...I wonder what finally tipped them off?)
  

• Johnny Blaze - aka "Ghost Rider"
  
  
• Rusty Shackelford - aka "Dale Gribble", exterminator on "King of the Hill".
  

Now, to get the pilfered pennies, Largent had the money routed to eight different bank accounts. He cashed out $8225.29 in micro-deposits from Google alone! (By the way, when Bancorp asked him about the thousands of little, itty, bitty deposits, he just said that in Google's terms of service, it didn't say anything about prohibiting multiple e-mail addresses and accounts. And I don't doubt that. But I'm kind of thinking Google would be assuming that you weren't going to be committing fraud with those multiple accounts. And by "multiple" I'm going to have to guess and say that they probably thought "maybe three", not "maybe three thousand". But that's just a guess.)

Yeah, I always thought that the micro-deposit thing was a little odd, but I'll admit that the opening of 50,000+ accounts to get the micro-deposits fraudulently is more odd. And it's pretty freaking weak, too. Dude, if you have the time to open 50,000 accounts, you have the time to get up in the morning and go to work. And when you get out of prison, we'd all appreciate it if you'd do so.

Sphere: Related Content