If you have an hour to spare, read today’s The Dilbert Blog, where he invites readers to submit their favorite jokes. Let’s start with my personal favorite Redneck joke:
*************************************************
A man walk into the General Store and sees Ole Blue the Bloodhound, bet over his’self licking his privates.
The man remarks to the clerk with a wink “I shore wish I could to that”!
The clerk replies, “Wall, be careful. . .. He Bites”
***************************************
Little Billy walks into Mrs. Marshall's 5th grade classroom on a Monday morning.
Mrs. Marshall: How was your weekend Billy?
Billy: Horrible. A car hit my dog in the ass!
Mrs. Marshall: I think you mean to say rectum.
Billy: Rectum?!? It damn near killed him!
***************************************
Q: What’s the difference between a Canadian and a Canoe?
A: A Canoe tips
***************************************
Q: Why is American beer like making love in a canoe?
A: Because it's f**king close to water.
**********************************
Q: What do john the Baptist and Winnie the pooh have in common?
A: They both have the same middle names.
***********************************
Q: Why do you always take two Mormons camping with you?
A: If you take only one, he'll drink all your beer.
***********************************
Two ladies were sitting next to each other on a plane. One was a Yankee and the other, a Southern Belle. The Southern Belle turned to the Yankee and asks, "So where y'all from?"
The Yankee turned her steely gaze to the Southern Belle and replied, "I am from a place where we do NOT end our sentences with a preposition."
Silence ensued and the flight continued until a few minutes later when the Southern Belle again turned to the Yankee and asked, "So, where are y'all from, bitch?"
*************************************
Two hunters are walking through the forest, when one of them collapses. His friend pulls out a cellphone and frantically dials 911. When the operator answers, he yells into the phone, "Help! My friend just died!"
The operator replies calmly, "Okay, first we need to make sure he's really dead."
The hunter replies, "Okay, hold on." A shot rings out. "Okay, what now?"
*************************************
Popular joke during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina:
Q. What's George W. Bush's position on Roe v. Wade?
A. He doesn't care how those people get out of New Orleans.
*************************************
A Canadian is walking down the street with a case of beer under his arm. His friend Doug stops him and asks, "Hey Bob! Whacha get the case of beer for?"
"I got it for my wife, eh." answers Bob.
"Oh!" exclaims Doug, "Good trade mate."
*************************************
Jesus and Moses are golfing one day, when they reach the par 5 water hole. Jesus reaches into his bag, grabs a 3 iron, and lines up. Moses says, "You'll never make it across the water with a 3 Iron". Jesus says, "If Arnold Palmer can do it, so can I." and proceeds to smack it right into the water. Moses says, "Don't worry, I'll get it for you." He parts the water and walks over to get the ball. Jesus thanks him, sets the ball down, and grabs the 3 iron. Moses says, "It didn't work last time, you're going to hit the ball into the water again." Sure enough, this lands right into the middle of the lake.
Frustrated Jesus says, "I'll get it this time." and walks out on the water to search for his ball. Just then, another foursome walks up, looks out at the water, then at Moses. One of them says, "Who does that guy think he is, Jesus??" "No," says Moses, "He thinks he's Arnold Palmer."
***********************************
Your Thesis:
Scene
It's a fine sunny day in the forest, and a rabbit is sitting outside his burrow, tippy-tapping on his typewriter.
Along comes a fox, out for a walk.
Fox
"What are you working on?"
Rabbit
"My thesis."
Fox
"Hmmm. What's it about?"
Rabbit
"Oh, I'm writing about how rabbits eat foxes."
(incredulous pause)
Fox
"That's ridiculous! Any fool knows that rabbits don't eat foxes."
Rabbit
"Sure they do, and I can prove it. Come with me."
They both disappear into the rabbit's burrow. After a few minutes, the rabbit returns, alone, to his typewriter and resumes typing.
Soon, a wolf comes along and stops to watch the hardworking rabbit.
Wolf
"What's that you're writing?"
Rabbit
"I'm doing a thesis on how rabbits eat wolves."
(loud guffaws)
Wolf
"You don't expect to get such rubbish published, do you?"
Rabbit
"No problem. Do you want to see why?"
The rabbit and the wolf go into the burrow, and again the rabbit returns by himself, after a few minutes, and goes back to typing.
Scene: inside the rabbit's burrow.
In one corner, there is a pile of fox bones. In another corner, a pile of wolf bones. On the other side of the room, a huge lion is belching and picking his teeth.
(The End)
Moral
It doesn't matter what you choose for a thesis subject.
It doesn't matter what you use for data.
What does matter is who you have for a thesis advisor.
******************************
A pirate walks into a bar with a steering wheel stuffed down the front of his pants.
Now the bartender having seen just about everything before, had to ask,
"Excuse me mister pirate sir, why do you have that steering wheel stuffed down the front of your pants?"
To which the pirate replied,
"ARRRRGGGHH! It's driving me nuts!!"
******************************************
A bear taking a dump asked a rabbit
"Does poo stick to your fur as a habit?"
"Of course not," said the hare,
"It's really quite rare!"
So the bear wiped his ass with the rabbit.
******************************************
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Moe Norman - The golf savant
Moe Norman (1929-2004) is the savant of the golf world, leveraging a tragic mental disability into becoming the world’s greatest Canadian golf ball striker.
The term “Idiot Savant” refers to someone with the ultimate paradox, the “brilliant idiot”:
- A severe mental disability in one area of their brain, and
- A corresponding brilliance in another metal area, usually music or math.
Many idiot savants are retarded at birth for genetic reasons, but Moe Norman suffered frontal lobe brain damage from a tragic childhood accident.
Research suggests that damage to the prefrontal cortex of the brain can occur when the brain smashed against the inside of the skill, and it’s a common result of high-speed automobile accidents that involve huge velocity changes, such as a rear-end collision or hitting a stationary object at high speed.
Further, doctors note that damage to the prefrontal cortex is associated with several DSM-IV disorders, including obsessive behaviors, and loss of social skills.
Moe’s friends have speculated that Moe is a higher functioning autistic, likening him to Dustin Hoffman's character in the movie "Rain Man.”
Moe Norman’s unconventional swing was amazingly accurate
The “brilliant idiot” makes for many compelling storylines, and there are many movies that feature idiot-savants:
- Being There - Peter Sellers plays a dummy with “powers”.
- Rain Man - Dustin Hoffman plays an autistic man with super-human math skills.
- Forrest Gump - Tom Hanks plays a “dullard” who has supernatural ping-pong skills.
When considering Moe Norman, we have to ask abut the “root cause” of his gifted golf swing and the cause-and-effect behind his amazing talent. Did Moe have an inate skill, or did he suffer from a obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) that led him to master golf? Moe was a nonconformist, and he had a very strange golf swing, gripping the club with his palms, not his fingers, like “regular” golfers.
Tiger Woods said that Moe Norman was on-par with Ben Hogan for a “unique” swing:
“Only two players have ever truly owned their swings; Moe Norman and Ben Hogan,"
Again, the question is whether Moe’s astounding golf skills were a direct result of his brain injury? Doctors say that frontal lobe brain damage is sometimes expressed with obsessive-compulsive behaviors, like hitting golf balls until your hands bleed, something that Norman did frequently.
“During one of his clinics, Moe hit over 1,500 drivers in a little over 7 hours, all of which where within 15 yards of one another.”
Brad Clayton, a PGA master golf instructor in North Carolina, remembered meeting Moe Norman and says that Moe could hit a whole bucket of balls more than 200 yards with superhuman accuracy, and the resulting ball cluster was only 10 feet wide.
I wonder if anyone will do a movie about this amazing fellow?
The term “Idiot Savant” refers to someone with the ultimate paradox, the “brilliant idiot”:
- A severe mental disability in one area of their brain, and
- A corresponding brilliance in another metal area, usually music or math.
Many idiot savants are retarded at birth for genetic reasons, but Moe Norman suffered frontal lobe brain damage from a tragic childhood accident.
Research suggests that damage to the prefrontal cortex of the brain can occur when the brain smashed against the inside of the skill, and it’s a common result of high-speed automobile accidents that involve huge velocity changes, such as a rear-end collision or hitting a stationary object at high speed.
Further, doctors note that damage to the prefrontal cortex is associated with several DSM-IV disorders, including obsessive behaviors, and loss of social skills.
Moe’s friends have speculated that Moe is a higher functioning autistic, likening him to Dustin Hoffman's character in the movie "Rain Man.”
Moe Norman’s unconventional swing was amazingly accurate
The “brilliant idiot” makes for many compelling storylines, and there are many movies that feature idiot-savants:
- Being There - Peter Sellers plays a dummy with “powers”.
- Rain Man - Dustin Hoffman plays an autistic man with super-human math skills.
- Forrest Gump - Tom Hanks plays a “dullard” who has supernatural ping-pong skills.
When considering Moe Norman, we have to ask abut the “root cause” of his gifted golf swing and the cause-and-effect behind his amazing talent. Did Moe have an inate skill, or did he suffer from a obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) that led him to master golf? Moe was a nonconformist, and he had a very strange golf swing, gripping the club with his palms, not his fingers, like “regular” golfers.
Tiger Woods said that Moe Norman was on-par with Ben Hogan for a “unique” swing:
“Only two players have ever truly owned their swings; Moe Norman and Ben Hogan,"
Again, the question is whether Moe’s astounding golf skills were a direct result of his brain injury? Doctors say that frontal lobe brain damage is sometimes expressed with obsessive-compulsive behaviors, like hitting golf balls until your hands bleed, something that Norman did frequently.
“During one of his clinics, Moe hit over 1,500 drivers in a little over 7 hours, all of which where within 15 yards of one another.”
Brad Clayton, a PGA master golf instructor in North Carolina, remembered meeting Moe Norman and says that Moe could hit a whole bucket of balls more than 200 yards with superhuman accuracy, and the resulting ball cluster was only 10 feet wide.
I wonder if anyone will do a movie about this amazing fellow?
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Real life South Park kids!
Real life South Park characters
The profane and vulgar antics of the South Park tots are almost a decade old now, and the show remains a favorite of intelligent people.
Here are some real-life depictions of the south Park kids:
For whatever reasons, South Park fans feel compelled to draw the South Park characters as they might appear in real life, good stuff by talented artists:
A real-life rendition of the South Park kids
This one is excellent, as it really captures the nuances of the characters:
For those diehard South Park fans, you can now draw yourself as a South Park character:
Draw yourself as a South Park Character
The profane and vulgar antics of the South Park tots are almost a decade old now, and the show remains a favorite of intelligent people.
Here are some real-life depictions of the south Park kids:
For whatever reasons, South Park fans feel compelled to draw the South Park characters as they might appear in real life, good stuff by talented artists:
A real-life rendition of the South Park kids
This one is excellent, as it really captures the nuances of the characters:
For those diehard South Park fans, you can now draw yourself as a South Park character:
Draw yourself as a South Park Character
Monday, July 02, 2007
Stopping high-speed police chases
Lets stop high-speed police chases before people are killed
We need a Federal law prohibiting scumbags who run from the police from filing lawsuits. Carrion, a drunken passenger in a car running from the police at 100 MPG, cursed at a police office after his capture and was justifiably shot.
Carrion is a disgrace to the U.S. Air Force, and he should be thankful to be alive, not suing people.
Carrion – A disgrace to the USAF
Running from the police should be considered as attempted first degree murder, as the public at-large becomes at great risk.
Running from the police should be a capital offense. Criminals who endanger the public with 100 MPH chases should be taken-down with extreme force and taken-out, even if means that they are killed. Maybe use attack helicopters?
Shoot runners off the road - quickly
A 2007 Supreme Court ruling gave police officers protection from lawsuits that result from high-speed car chases -- ruling against a Georgia teenager who was paralyzed after his car was run off the road. Justice Scalia said law enforcement officers do NOT have to call off pursuit of a fleeing motorist when they reasonably expect that other people could be hurt.
I propose that the U.S. military intercede to protect the public from high-speed police chases and use out Apache helicopters to obliterate any criminal who endangers the public by running from police.
Lets add some spice to police chase TV coverage
Lets blow-up police evaders quickly, before they kill someone.
In California, police chases are widely covered in the media, and allowing the criminals to be killed quickly will add to the drama. Imagine the ratings when a scumbag’s car explodes on the freeway, possible saving the lives of many innocent victims.
As for this disgraceful drunken airman, I hope he gets a dishonorable discharge.
The policeman should be suing him, not the other way around.
We need a Federal law prohibiting scumbags who run from the police from filing lawsuits. Carrion, a drunken passenger in a car running from the police at 100 MPG, cursed at a police office after his capture and was justifiably shot.
Carrion is a disgrace to the U.S. Air Force, and he should be thankful to be alive, not suing people.
Carrion – A disgrace to the USAF
Running from the police should be considered as attempted first degree murder, as the public at-large becomes at great risk.
Running from the police should be a capital offense. Criminals who endanger the public with 100 MPH chases should be taken-down with extreme force and taken-out, even if means that they are killed. Maybe use attack helicopters?
Shoot runners off the road - quickly
A 2007 Supreme Court ruling gave police officers protection from lawsuits that result from high-speed car chases -- ruling against a Georgia teenager who was paralyzed after his car was run off the road. Justice Scalia said law enforcement officers do NOT have to call off pursuit of a fleeing motorist when they reasonably expect that other people could be hurt.
I propose that the U.S. military intercede to protect the public from high-speed police chases and use out Apache helicopters to obliterate any criminal who endangers the public by running from police.
Lets add some spice to police chase TV coverage
Lets blow-up police evaders quickly, before they kill someone.
In California, police chases are widely covered in the media, and allowing the criminals to be killed quickly will add to the drama. Imagine the ratings when a scumbag’s car explodes on the freeway, possible saving the lives of many innocent victims.
As for this disgraceful drunken airman, I hope he gets a dishonorable discharge.
The policeman should be suing him, not the other way around.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Webopolies & anti-trust laws
Just as the legal system reacted to the injustices of the robber baron monopolies by enacting antitrust laws, we are now seeing a reaction to the “unfair” advantage of the webopolies. Webopolies have “life or death” control over those who rely on them to earn their livelihood.
Here is a book on webopolies that addresses this issue.
eBay cracks down
With all of the fraud and nastiness associated with buying from anonymous people, I don’t buy much on eBay anymore. Consumer Reports issued a consumer alert on eBay in their August 2007 issue:
“Buyers indicated that some sellers took their money and ran, failed to disclose key details about the merchandise, or overstated the item’s condition. However, deceptions weren’t the only pitfalls for folks to avoid when participating in an online auction. Although eBay prohibits trade in illegal goods, buyers can end up with unsafe products.”
Evidently, I’m not alone in being wary of buying on eBay, and eBay is trying to get us back by developing an algorithm to suspend “bad” sellers. It’s a great idea, but it brings-up an important legal issue.
Just last week, eBay suspended or restricted over 15,000 sellers in their program, citing that any low feedback percentage (less than 95% positive) would not be tolerated!
This is a welcome move, but it makes me wonder if the algorithm for tossing-out buyers may be unfair? As a programmer, I’ve worked on sophisticated rule-based algorithms, and “analyzing” eBay’s data to determine the correct “bottom 2%” of buyers is tricky. However, it’s clear that some of the suspended sellers should not be selling on eBay (IMHO).
Does negative feedback constitute a Breach of Contract?
Technically, they say that the seller has breached their eBay agreement ("breach of non performance policy"), specifically the “seller nonperformance” clause. eBay also claims that “1% of sellers are responsible for 35% of bad buyer experiences."
“Making the site safer by cracking down on sellers sounds like a sensible idea, but eBay sellers know that unscrupulous buyers can give them unjustified negative feedback.
The eBay agreement reads:
“Without limiting other remedies, we may limit, suspend, or terminate our service and user accounts, prohibit access to our website, delay or remove hosted content, and take technical and legal steps to keep users off the Sites if we think that they are creating problems, possible legal liabilities, or acting inconsistently with the letter or spirit of our policies.”
By going purely on raw feedback, and not taking into account circumstances like deadbeat and newbie buyers, some good sellers may get caught in the net. And as usual, sellers are left wondering if eBay exempts their top sellers from such crackdowns.”
For a great example, consider this suspended eBay seller. I checked their feedback myself, and noted that their “negative feedback” was by a bad buyer (with a -1 feedback score!). The feedbacks make it clear that this seller was just the victim of “deadbeat bidders”, something that could happen to any seller.
“- No repley to my E-mails regarding invoice/ No combined discount shipping
- E-mailed several times(no answer) no combined shipping as stated”
This is not a “perfect seller”, but there are clearly some mitigating circumstances here.
Legally, which is true? Has this seller been tortuously damaged because of a flaw in the eBay algorithm, or does eBay have the absolute right to say who uses their system?
Remember, webopolies can kick-out someone who simply writes a negative blog post about them. They don’t need a reason, it’s their sandbox.
Now, these acts can only be conducted by “webopolies”, vendors whose products are indispensable, and which have no close competitors. eBay is the 800-pound Gorilla of eCommerce. Others have tried to compete, but the “barriers to entry” are impossible to overcome. Also, being a monopoly has created the “habit” of associating “eBay” with online auctions, just like people used to associate “Ma Bell” with telephones.
Some assert that these “webopoly” companies hold a “life or death” grip on their user communities. Being banned from Google has ruined many businesses, and legal challenges thusfar have ruled that Google can accept or reject anyone they want, for any reason, or no reason at all. It’s their right.
Now, here are the core questions:
- Do webopolies have an obligation to keep criminals from using their products? For example, does eBay have a responsibility not to become a “thieves market”? US law has strict prohibitions against aiding and abetting a criminal. It’s not just webopolies at-risk, especially for web sites that are dedicated to serving the felon community.
- Given that the webopolies have this public safety obligation, do they also have an obligation to be “fair” to their community, especially when it indispensable to the jobs of tens of thousands of corporations?
Are webopolies aiding and abetting criminals?
According to the FindLaw entry on criminal aiding and abetting a criminal:
"A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state.
A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice..."
In sum, it’s clear that webopolies are facing many of the same antitrust issues as the early 20th century monopolies.
Here is a book on webopolies that addresses this issue.
eBay cracks down
With all of the fraud and nastiness associated with buying from anonymous people, I don’t buy much on eBay anymore. Consumer Reports issued a consumer alert on eBay in their August 2007 issue:
“Buyers indicated that some sellers took their money and ran, failed to disclose key details about the merchandise, or overstated the item’s condition. However, deceptions weren’t the only pitfalls for folks to avoid when participating in an online auction. Although eBay prohibits trade in illegal goods, buyers can end up with unsafe products.”
Evidently, I’m not alone in being wary of buying on eBay, and eBay is trying to get us back by developing an algorithm to suspend “bad” sellers. It’s a great idea, but it brings-up an important legal issue.
Just last week, eBay suspended or restricted over 15,000 sellers in their program, citing that any low feedback percentage (less than 95% positive) would not be tolerated!
This is a welcome move, but it makes me wonder if the algorithm for tossing-out buyers may be unfair? As a programmer, I’ve worked on sophisticated rule-based algorithms, and “analyzing” eBay’s data to determine the correct “bottom 2%” of buyers is tricky. However, it’s clear that some of the suspended sellers should not be selling on eBay (IMHO).
Does negative feedback constitute a Breach of Contract?
Technically, they say that the seller has breached their eBay agreement ("breach of non performance policy"), specifically the “seller nonperformance” clause. eBay also claims that “1% of sellers are responsible for 35% of bad buyer experiences."
“Making the site safer by cracking down on sellers sounds like a sensible idea, but eBay sellers know that unscrupulous buyers can give them unjustified negative feedback.
The eBay agreement reads:
“Without limiting other remedies, we may limit, suspend, or terminate our service and user accounts, prohibit access to our website, delay or remove hosted content, and take technical and legal steps to keep users off the Sites if we think that they are creating problems, possible legal liabilities, or acting inconsistently with the letter or spirit of our policies.”
By going purely on raw feedback, and not taking into account circumstances like deadbeat and newbie buyers, some good sellers may get caught in the net. And as usual, sellers are left wondering if eBay exempts their top sellers from such crackdowns.”
For a great example, consider this suspended eBay seller. I checked their feedback myself, and noted that their “negative feedback” was by a bad buyer (with a -1 feedback score!). The feedbacks make it clear that this seller was just the victim of “deadbeat bidders”, something that could happen to any seller.
“- No repley to my E-mails regarding invoice/ No combined discount shipping
- E-mailed several times(no answer) no combined shipping as stated”
This is not a “perfect seller”, but there are clearly some mitigating circumstances here.
Legally, which is true? Has this seller been tortuously damaged because of a flaw in the eBay algorithm, or does eBay have the absolute right to say who uses their system?
Remember, webopolies can kick-out someone who simply writes a negative blog post about them. They don’t need a reason, it’s their sandbox.
Now, these acts can only be conducted by “webopolies”, vendors whose products are indispensable, and which have no close competitors. eBay is the 800-pound Gorilla of eCommerce. Others have tried to compete, but the “barriers to entry” are impossible to overcome. Also, being a monopoly has created the “habit” of associating “eBay” with online auctions, just like people used to associate “Ma Bell” with telephones.
Some assert that these “webopoly” companies hold a “life or death” grip on their user communities. Being banned from Google has ruined many businesses, and legal challenges thusfar have ruled that Google can accept or reject anyone they want, for any reason, or no reason at all. It’s their right.
Now, here are the core questions:
- Do webopolies have an obligation to keep criminals from using their products? For example, does eBay have a responsibility not to become a “thieves market”? US law has strict prohibitions against aiding and abetting a criminal. It’s not just webopolies at-risk, especially for web sites that are dedicated to serving the felon community.
- Given that the webopolies have this public safety obligation, do they also have an obligation to be “fair” to their community, especially when it indispensable to the jobs of tens of thousands of corporations?
Are webopolies aiding and abetting criminals?
According to the FindLaw entry on criminal aiding and abetting a criminal:
"A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state.
A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice..."
In sum, it’s clear that webopolies are facing many of the same antitrust issues as the early 20th century monopolies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
