No, it's not a new movie. But, odds are pretty good that you haven't seen it. Slightly better than the odds that you've heard of it. You should see it though, bottom line.
The writing is something the probably drives both the metaphysics and philosophy crowds insane. The 'cool ideas' are probably either common theories or complete crap, it's hard to tell. But to a layman (i.e. me), it seems like pretty heady stuff. The Book is anyway.
But I'm getting ahead of myself.
Bickford Shmeckler is a screwed up kid. But, his attention to detail and dedication to a unified theory of everything has brought him to hold, in his own hands, a book. A book with mind orgasmic powers. Trapped within are an insane Matthew Lillard, a entranced groupie John Cho, and super-cutie Olivia Wilde.
From there...it really doesn't GO anywhere... per se. But, maybe that's the point. In his quest to find The Book, it has a quest of its own. And they both find themselves: The Book an audience and Bickford a life. Pretty interesting stuff. I wish I had cool ideas...and that people thought so.
*SIGH*
Maybe if I had a name like Bickford Shmeckler, I could have cool ideas.
Oct 5, 2009
Op-Ed: Anonymous movement
Good Wired article about the Anonymous 4Chan crusade against the Church of Scientology.
Oct 4, 2009
News: Seasonal flu shots DOUBLES risk of getting swine flu (H1N1)
That makes me laugh. Not because people are getting swine flu, but that the flu shot that was supposed to prevent it makes you twice as likely to get it. The exact opposite result. Ha!
Sep 18, 2009
Philosophy of a Bachelor Party
Most women don't really get the bachelor party. They don't understand the rationale behind it. But, to be completely honest...I don't think most guys do either.
Most guys use it as an excuse to do all the things they want to do, but can't or won't because they can't properly explain it to those they care about. This isn't really all so bad. The mainstays of a bachelor party - strippers (either in a club or a private show), drinking to the point of sickness and passing out, and all sorts of other frivolity - aren't exactly things most guys are happy to admit to, even if they do indeed enjoy it. The bachelor party gives them an out - the all too familiar peer pressure excuse.
But, it's not the worst excuse either. Bachelor parties are all about the single man. Those things are staples of the single life. The night is supposed to be about men being men. Not partaking in these things can be a very big hit to your self-image as a man. Especially if you've been in couples coma for too long. Not going out, not having weekends with the guys, and dare I say some onset of monogamy monotony. Not that these things are necessarily bad. But, having a good long weekend of these things can be just the thing a guy needs to remember who he is...as a man.
As cheesy as that sounds, it's true. Guys can easily forget who they are, separate from their significant others. They become the Bennifer, the Brangelina, the lame two-person-as-one. Not that it's a bad thing for the guy either. Guy friends are awesome, the best! But there's always one things guys like more...and except for a minority born with a different disposition, only a woman can give it to them. And they seem to require a bit more constant attention. Small price to pay for what you get in return.
This brings us to the reason for this diatribe...the Brandon Block bachelor party. As I've mentioned, bachelor parties follow a pretty regular script. One night, the best man gets all of the groom-to-be's best friends together for a night of drinking, strippers, and stupidity. It's supposed to be a vision of what the guy will be missing when (if?) he gets married and throws it all away. To take a quote from one of the greatest bachelors of our time, Dr. Gregory House, M.D., "If what you do before the marriage is the same as what you do after the marriage, the ceremony and commitment itself has no meaning." You MUST do stupid stuff you shouldn't do in a commitment as a show of reverence to what you are giving up for the woman you want to marry. To show that the commitment really means something.
Britten, Beto, and Diesel say 'Hi!'
At least, that's the big idea. But what if those things aren't really something the groom-to-be is really going to miss? What if strippers and strip clubs and dumb bimbos aren't really the guys cup of tea? What then? You might think that this doesn't happen very often, but it's strangely common. The last two bachelor parties I've been to (and probably the next one I go to) will have this strange conundrum. So what do you do?
It's surprisingly easy. You find out what the groom-to-be really enjoys, what he really loves about being out and about without the misses, and give him an overload of it! Show him that if you get married, you'll still be able to do the things he loves. He just won't be able to do it on a grand scale very often. That he must sacrifice the amazing all out weekend. So that's what we did. [Ed. No this is not everything we did. I'm just going to select the key activities that are A) important to my point and B) least embarrassing to explain.]
Poker and Beer
Leaving Friday afternoon, we set out for Lake Superior. Arriving meant the drinking. It meant some poker, too. An amazing night was had. But, that wasn't enough! We could do this anytime...and have for that matter. We must stay up all night! Like we used to before living with girlfriends, graduating college...before growing up essentially. So we did.
Now, Brandon likes fishing. Loves the outdoors, really. So, we could just go fishing. Again, not thinking big enough! So, our best man, Matt "Diesel" Winegar found the perfect "Think Big" activity. Charter fishing for trout and salmon on Lake Superior. Great fishing...good times. Can't fit 9 people on one boat, so 5 went with one and 4 went to the other. If feel bad that Beto picked the wrong boat - his caught only 6 for 5 people; the other caught 17 for 4 people, but then again, his boat had the beer on board. So maybe it was a wash. This was, however, the perfect example of an activity fit for a bachelor party. Not something you would normally do, not something a guy with a serious relationship would do otherwise, but still an amazing trip.
FisherMEN
The next morning, Beto did join us for a golf outing. What we realized, while we were out, was that this was much better than some simple golf outing. If we tried to put this event together like a normal golf session, we'd be split up. You can't have 6-8 people golfing in one group on any legitimate golf course. You have to be in groups of three or four. But on this little, neglected, "executive" course...we could all play together. And, with no one else in sight, we could play any way we wanted. Another perfect activity.
Beto drives
So, what have we learned?
First, I think, is that you HAVE to do this over a weekend, not just one night. One night doesn't do justice to what the goal is supposed to be. One night doesn't leave enough time to do all the things you can do to make the weekend legendary. And, one night leaves to much room for error - if one activity goes wrong, that may be a good 25-33% of the activities. That can ruin, or at the very least tarnish, an otherwise good bachelor party.
Second is that it is NOT necessary to include activities of the risque variety. If that is something the gentleman in question enjoys, then by all means include them. But, if it's not enjoyable, it isn't essential or even encouraged to include them. Something else can be arranged that will be just as enjoyable. Which brings me to my third lesson.
Enjoyment is key, not activity. It doesn't really matter what you do. It only matters that everyone (though especially the man of honor) have a good time. Neh! Have a GREAT time. This is the most important lesson. Find out what the guy likes. Do it to an EXTREME level, a level at which the guy is not likely to have again. This will be the lasting impression. This will be the example of commitment he will show to the love of his life.
Beto's having fun
And, ladies. Please remember - regardless of all the things he may/may not do that you will disapprove of, he (AND his friends) are showing you what he is giving up to be with you. As strange as it sounds...he's showing you how much he loves you. Showing you that he is happy to CHOOSE you...even over fun he might have without you. He's saying that YOU make him happy. Happy enough to say that it is more than what his friends can give him.
Beto and Missy
That's gotta be one hell of a commitment...because this weekend was DAMN fun.
Most guys use it as an excuse to do all the things they want to do, but can't or won't because they can't properly explain it to those they care about. This isn't really all so bad. The mainstays of a bachelor party - strippers (either in a club or a private show), drinking to the point of sickness and passing out, and all sorts of other frivolity - aren't exactly things most guys are happy to admit to, even if they do indeed enjoy it. The bachelor party gives them an out - the all too familiar peer pressure excuse.
But, it's not the worst excuse either. Bachelor parties are all about the single man. Those things are staples of the single life. The night is supposed to be about men being men. Not partaking in these things can be a very big hit to your self-image as a man. Especially if you've been in couples coma for too long. Not going out, not having weekends with the guys, and dare I say some onset of monogamy monotony. Not that these things are necessarily bad. But, having a good long weekend of these things can be just the thing a guy needs to remember who he is...as a man.
As cheesy as that sounds, it's true. Guys can easily forget who they are, separate from their significant others. They become the Bennifer, the Brangelina, the lame two-person-as-one. Not that it's a bad thing for the guy either. Guy friends are awesome, the best! But there's always one things guys like more...and except for a minority born with a different disposition, only a woman can give it to them. And they seem to require a bit more constant attention. Small price to pay for what you get in return.
This brings us to the reason for this diatribe...the Brandon Block bachelor party. As I've mentioned, bachelor parties follow a pretty regular script. One night, the best man gets all of the groom-to-be's best friends together for a night of drinking, strippers, and stupidity. It's supposed to be a vision of what the guy will be missing when (if?) he gets married and throws it all away. To take a quote from one of the greatest bachelors of our time, Dr. Gregory House, M.D., "If what you do before the marriage is the same as what you do after the marriage, the ceremony and commitment itself has no meaning." You MUST do stupid stuff you shouldn't do in a commitment as a show of reverence to what you are giving up for the woman you want to marry. To show that the commitment really means something.
Britten, Beto, and Diesel say 'Hi!'At least, that's the big idea. But what if those things aren't really something the groom-to-be is really going to miss? What if strippers and strip clubs and dumb bimbos aren't really the guys cup of tea? What then? You might think that this doesn't happen very often, but it's strangely common. The last two bachelor parties I've been to (and probably the next one I go to) will have this strange conundrum. So what do you do?
It's surprisingly easy. You find out what the groom-to-be really enjoys, what he really loves about being out and about without the misses, and give him an overload of it! Show him that if you get married, you'll still be able to do the things he loves. He just won't be able to do it on a grand scale very often. That he must sacrifice the amazing all out weekend. So that's what we did. [Ed. No this is not everything we did. I'm just going to select the key activities that are A) important to my point and B) least embarrassing to explain.]
Poker and BeerLeaving Friday afternoon, we set out for Lake Superior. Arriving meant the drinking. It meant some poker, too. An amazing night was had. But, that wasn't enough! We could do this anytime...and have for that matter. We must stay up all night! Like we used to before living with girlfriends, graduating college...before growing up essentially. So we did.
Now, Brandon likes fishing. Loves the outdoors, really. So, we could just go fishing. Again, not thinking big enough! So, our best man, Matt "Diesel" Winegar found the perfect "Think Big" activity. Charter fishing for trout and salmon on Lake Superior. Great fishing...good times. Can't fit 9 people on one boat, so 5 went with one and 4 went to the other. If feel bad that Beto picked the wrong boat - his caught only 6 for 5 people; the other caught 17 for 4 people, but then again, his boat had the beer on board. So maybe it was a wash. This was, however, the perfect example of an activity fit for a bachelor party. Not something you would normally do, not something a guy with a serious relationship would do otherwise, but still an amazing trip.
FisherMENThe next morning, Beto did join us for a golf outing. What we realized, while we were out, was that this was much better than some simple golf outing. If we tried to put this event together like a normal golf session, we'd be split up. You can't have 6-8 people golfing in one group on any legitimate golf course. You have to be in groups of three or four. But on this little, neglected, "executive" course...we could all play together. And, with no one else in sight, we could play any way we wanted. Another perfect activity.
Beto drivesSo, what have we learned?
First, I think, is that you HAVE to do this over a weekend, not just one night. One night doesn't do justice to what the goal is supposed to be. One night doesn't leave enough time to do all the things you can do to make the weekend legendary. And, one night leaves to much room for error - if one activity goes wrong, that may be a good 25-33% of the activities. That can ruin, or at the very least tarnish, an otherwise good bachelor party.
Second is that it is NOT necessary to include activities of the risque variety. If that is something the gentleman in question enjoys, then by all means include them. But, if it's not enjoyable, it isn't essential or even encouraged to include them. Something else can be arranged that will be just as enjoyable. Which brings me to my third lesson.
Enjoyment is key, not activity. It doesn't really matter what you do. It only matters that everyone (though especially the man of honor) have a good time. Neh! Have a GREAT time. This is the most important lesson. Find out what the guy likes. Do it to an EXTREME level, a level at which the guy is not likely to have again. This will be the lasting impression. This will be the example of commitment he will show to the love of his life.
Beto's having funAnd, ladies. Please remember - regardless of all the things he may/may not do that you will disapprove of, he (AND his friends) are showing you what he is giving up to be with you. As strange as it sounds...he's showing you how much he loves you. Showing you that he is happy to CHOOSE you...even over fun he might have without you. He's saying that YOU make him happy. Happy enough to say that it is more than what his friends can give him.
Beto and Missy
That's gotta be one hell of a commitment...because this weekend was DAMN fun.
Sep 3, 2009
Infographics: Mapping the 7 Deadly Sins (US)
These are awesome maps. They show the hot and cold spots for the various deadly sins. For example, Greed is the average income compared with the number of people living below the poverty line. No surprise that California comes in as devilish and South Dakota comes in as saintly. All seven are present and accounted for. And the Midwest comes out looking pretty in all of them...almost.
West river seems to have a problem with lust (Number of STD cases reported per capita), though East river seems to be on the saintly side. Must have something to do with going stir crazy seeing nothing for miles and miles and miles and....
***Note: I tried to find some direct links to the research or the maps, but couldn't find any. Beyond the hot spot maps the Wired article shows (linked in the title), there are some that are broken down by COUNTY in each state. I think those would be interesting. I'll post links for them here, if I can find any.
West river seems to have a problem with lust (Number of STD cases reported per capita), though East river seems to be on the saintly side. Must have something to do with going stir crazy seeing nothing for miles and miles and miles and....
***Note: I tried to find some direct links to the research or the maps, but couldn't find any. Beyond the hot spot maps the Wired article shows (linked in the title), there are some that are broken down by COUNTY in each state. I think those would be interesting. I'll post links for them here, if I can find any.
Jul 3, 2009
News: Woman jailed, punched, violated for carrying pug in subway
There are so many things wrong with this. I'm not even sure where to start.
First, the male cop was a misogynistic dick. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the woman didn't do anything wrong. She was carrying her pug around, which she shouldn't be doing. But nothing could make her deserve how this D-bag allegedly treated her. Arresting, abusing, and maybe even so far as groping her. And, witnesses are saying that he was making sexist remarks while doing all this. I really don't know if she was resisting or anything of the sort, but disorderly conduct? Seems weird.
Next, we have the issue I think that is just as disturbing, but, I think, most people will miss. She was jailed with two other women. These women spit on her and hit her. Why did they do these things? Because she was crying and scared.
Seriously...people suck. I hate them. Why are people STILL trying to change my disposition on this? Do I really need to keep posting things like this? And, yes. I realize that there ARE plenty of examples of people being good. And they make me feel just a bit better. But people are SUPPOSED to be good, and they usually aren't. That sucks.
If the cop did these things, he should be fired and charged. If any other police officers did anything to aid or cover up any of the activities of the officer in question, they should be fired and charged. If those women did those things, they should be brought up on additional charges. There...I said it. Let's go, Karma. Kick it into gear.
We need some justice now and again.
First, the male cop was a misogynistic dick. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the woman didn't do anything wrong. She was carrying her pug around, which she shouldn't be doing. But nothing could make her deserve how this D-bag allegedly treated her. Arresting, abusing, and maybe even so far as groping her. And, witnesses are saying that he was making sexist remarks while doing all this. I really don't know if she was resisting or anything of the sort, but disorderly conduct? Seems weird.
Next, we have the issue I think that is just as disturbing, but, I think, most people will miss. She was jailed with two other women. These women spit on her and hit her. Why did they do these things? Because she was crying and scared.
Seriously...people suck. I hate them. Why are people STILL trying to change my disposition on this? Do I really need to keep posting things like this? And, yes. I realize that there ARE plenty of examples of people being good. And they make me feel just a bit better. But people are SUPPOSED to be good, and they usually aren't. That sucks.
If the cop did these things, he should be fired and charged. If any other police officers did anything to aid or cover up any of the activities of the officer in question, they should be fired and charged. If those women did those things, they should be brought up on additional charges. There...I said it. Let's go, Karma. Kick it into gear.
We need some justice now and again.
Jul 2, 2009
Update: Judge overrules jury conviction, acquits Lori Drew of Cyberbullying
WTF? Seriously. We finally get a JURY to convict Lori Drew of being a psycho B!7(#, and the judge overrules the jury and acquits her? Who blew who to get that reversed?
I really want to know what the hell happened here. Something awfully fishy is going on here.
I really want to know what the hell happened here. Something awfully fishy is going on here.
Apr 3, 2009
Google debuts 'eyes-free' touchscreen controls
I'm not really sure why. But for the longest time, accessibility issues have always been at the forefront of my mind when it comes to software design. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that I spent a couple years as the chair of the student body legislature (Speaker of Forum) at the University of Minnesota. While I was there, I got to know a lot of the representatives to the body, especially those from the cultural centers. The one that really sticks in my mind is John Lukanen on the Disabled Student Cultural Center (DSCC). John had a visual handicap. But he was still one of the smartest people in the room and could generally recognize my voice, or at least pretend well enough to make me believe that he could. :-)
I liked John. Always made sure I said 'Hi' when I saw him. And his work with us made sure I kept accessibility in mind, especially when I was making changes to the student government's website.
Maybe that's why this is so cool. The problem with the newest trend in technology, touchscreens, is that they form a huge accessibility/usability problem for those with visual handicaps. And I don't know why nobody thought of this before.
Google shows off their newest idea for allowing touchscreens to be used even by those who can't necessarily see the screen. By opening the dialing controls wherever the user first touches, you can dial without looking. Which would actually be useful for anyone, not sure those who CAN'T see, but also in times where it would be more convenient to be able to dial without looking.
I really hope this kind of thing catches on. And even if it doesn't catch on as a feature for ALL dialing, I at least hope it becomes an essential OPTION for those who can't see.
Bravo, Google!
I liked John. Always made sure I said 'Hi' when I saw him. And his work with us made sure I kept accessibility in mind, especially when I was making changes to the student government's website.
Maybe that's why this is so cool. The problem with the newest trend in technology, touchscreens, is that they form a huge accessibility/usability problem for those with visual handicaps. And I don't know why nobody thought of this before.
Google shows off their newest idea for allowing touchscreens to be used even by those who can't necessarily see the screen. By opening the dialing controls wherever the user first touches, you can dial without looking. Which would actually be useful for anyone, not sure those who CAN'T see, but also in times where it would be more convenient to be able to dial without looking.
I really hope this kind of thing catches on. And even if it doesn't catch on as a feature for ALL dialing, I at least hope it becomes an essential OPTION for those who can't see.
Bravo, Google!
Jan 30, 2009
School allowed to bar from extracurriculars for ...
Should a school be allowed to bar a student from extracurricular activities for Internet speech?
A federal court (it's unclear to me which one) has again denied a student damages. A girl running for student body president at a Connecticut's Lewis S. Mills High School called members of the school's administration the "douchebags in central office" on her LiveJournal, an online journal website. The school found out and barred her from running for Student Body President.
I could see this if she wrote it while in school. But, that's not even a factor. It's basically saying that if it COULD be read by members of the school's community and is vulgar, that they can discipline based on that speech. This is not to say that they could discipline her academically via suspension or expulsion, the decision was quick to point out that the school has much more leeway in doling out discipline when it comes to extracurricular activities.
I just think that speech on the Internet, even if she DID write it on school grounds, is speech made to the void...and, therefore, not under the authority of the school.
A federal court (it's unclear to me which one) has again denied a student damages. A girl running for student body president at a Connecticut's Lewis S. Mills High School called members of the school's administration the "douchebags in central office" on her LiveJournal, an online journal website. The school found out and barred her from running for Student Body President.
I could see this if she wrote it while in school. But, that's not even a factor. It's basically saying that if it COULD be read by members of the school's community and is vulgar, that they can discipline based on that speech. This is not to say that they could discipline her academically via suspension or expulsion, the decision was quick to point out that the school has much more leeway in doling out discipline when it comes to extracurricular activities.
I just think that speech on the Internet, even if she DID write it on school grounds, is speech made to the void...and, therefore, not under the authority of the school.
Jan 14, 2009
Report Finds Online Threats to Children Overblown
In a resounding voice for the freedom of the Internet, a task force that was commissioned by the order of 49 state attorneys general to examine the extent of the threats children face on social networks concluded that there is not a significant problem. And...yes. I, too, would like to know what state had nothing to do with this.
From the article:
This is an amazing thing for the future of the Internet. And also a personal victory in my quest to prove that parents need to spend less time trying to officiate over what everyone else does and pay more attention to what THEIR KIDS are doing.
The Internet is amazing...as well as new. But, that doesn't mean that it is the destruction of our values. I love the Internet. Not that having a blog and my very own website wasn't a pretty good clue already. We can really decide to embrace it and make it a better place. And we can do it without having to sacrifice the freedom it grants us all. Information never hurt anyone...not to my knowledge anyway. I hate the sake of stupidity for the illusion of safety.
I'm not saying that I am unaware of the pressures on today's families. Two-income families are becoming the norm, which makes it much harder to spend quality time with the children involved. And with the economy headed the way it is, that doesn't seem likely to end anytime soon. I am not unsympathetic to that.
This was a blatant attempt to force politicians to stifle the progress of the Information Superhighway to do parents' job for them. I am happy as a clam that logic and reason prevailed. Thank God. Anyone who thinks that sexual predators outnumber regular people with the explosion of YouTube, Match.com, Facebook, MySpace, and every other way that the Internet is making the world smaller...should go stick their head back in the sand. The rest of us are going to be utilizing the amazing new technologies and discoveries that are fueling our world.
And with that...I'm going to go read more stuff about things on Wikipedia. And, yes...I've been taking many grains of salt.
From the article:
[They] concluded that the problem of bullying among children, both online and offline, poses a far more serious challenge than the sexual solicitation of minors by adults. ... The 278-page report, released Tuesday, was the result of a year of meetings between dozens of academics, experts in childhood safety and executives of 30 companies, including Yahoo, AOL, MySpace and Facebook.
This is an amazing thing for the future of the Internet. And also a personal victory in my quest to prove that parents need to spend less time trying to officiate over what everyone else does and pay more attention to what THEIR KIDS are doing.
The Internet is amazing...as well as new. But, that doesn't mean that it is the destruction of our values. I love the Internet. Not that having a blog and my very own website wasn't a pretty good clue already. We can really decide to embrace it and make it a better place. And we can do it without having to sacrifice the freedom it grants us all. Information never hurt anyone...not to my knowledge anyway. I hate the sake of stupidity for the illusion of safety.
I'm not saying that I am unaware of the pressures on today's families. Two-income families are becoming the norm, which makes it much harder to spend quality time with the children involved. And with the economy headed the way it is, that doesn't seem likely to end anytime soon. I am not unsympathetic to that.
This was a blatant attempt to force politicians to stifle the progress of the Information Superhighway to do parents' job for them. I am happy as a clam that logic and reason prevailed. Thank God. Anyone who thinks that sexual predators outnumber regular people with the explosion of YouTube, Match.com, Facebook, MySpace, and every other way that the Internet is making the world smaller...should go stick their head back in the sand. The rest of us are going to be utilizing the amazing new technologies and discoveries that are fueling our world.
And with that...I'm going to go read more stuff about things on Wikipedia. And, yes...I've been taking many grains of salt.
Dec 18, 2008
Regulators adopt new credit card rules
Finally! I've been pretty mad about the idea of 'Double cycle billing' for a long, long time. It's about time someone did something about it.
Let's say that on 11/20 you get your statement, and it's $1200. Since the statement, you've racked up another $500 in balance. When you go to pay your statement balance, you only pay $1150. On the NEXT statement, how much should you pay in interest?
A NORMAL person would say that you should by your interest rate (say 13%, which is typical of many credit cards but can go as high as 18% or more) times the unpaid balance: $50.00 * 0.13 = $6.50 in interest. So the next statement (assuming you didn't make any other purchases since you paid your bill) would be the $50 you didn't pay, the $6.50 in interest and the $500 new balance. But you'd be WRONG!
Instead, they do the following: they take the AVERAGE balance from the last two billing cycles and charge you interest on THAT balance. And they do that for TWO billing cycles. Which is just stupid. Especially if you pay the entire balance the next month...you would STILL see some interest being applied (thanks to the averaging).
The other aspect I don't understand is how they can charge it on the $500 in new purchases? How can I be charged any interest on that amount at all when the amount isn't due yet? That pisses me off. And I don't think these new policies actually address this issue either.
Oh well...at least we're a step closer.
Let's say that on 11/20 you get your statement, and it's $1200. Since the statement, you've racked up another $500 in balance. When you go to pay your statement balance, you only pay $1150. On the NEXT statement, how much should you pay in interest?
A NORMAL person would say that you should by your interest rate (say 13%, which is typical of many credit cards but can go as high as 18% or more) times the unpaid balance: $50.00 * 0.13 = $6.50 in interest. So the next statement (assuming you didn't make any other purchases since you paid your bill) would be the $50 you didn't pay, the $6.50 in interest and the $500 new balance. But you'd be WRONG!
Instead, they do the following: they take the AVERAGE balance from the last two billing cycles and charge you interest on THAT balance. And they do that for TWO billing cycles. Which is just stupid. Especially if you pay the entire balance the next month...you would STILL see some interest being applied (thanks to the averaging).
The other aspect I don't understand is how they can charge it on the $500 in new purchases? How can I be charged any interest on that amount at all when the amount isn't due yet? That pisses me off. And I don't think these new policies actually address this issue either.
Oh well...at least we're a step closer.
Nov 25, 2008
News: Lori Drew "MySpace Suicide" case goes to jury
OK. So...I haven't really talked about this. Mainly because I thought it was a bunch of crap. But, I finally broke down and read this today because Wired has been putting up an article a day (if not more) on the subject over the last 2 weeks.
Here's the story: Lori Drew is a 49-year-old mom. Her 13-year-old daughter was called a lesbian by 13-year-old Megan Meier. Drew, her 18-year-old employee Ashley, and her daughter (Sarah Drew) conspired to create a fake MySpace account. This account was for the imaginary 16-year-old boy Josh Evans. They used this account to convince Megan, who suffered from depression and suicidal thoughts, to fall in love with 'Josh'. Then had 'him' turn on her, telling her that 'the world would be a better place without you.' And did this while 'he' 'broke up' with Megan, driving Megan to suicide.
I really don't know where I stand on this. On the one hand, the 13-year-old daughter probably isn't to blame: she really didn't have a whole lot of intelligence, at least looking at what her mom did. But the mom? I'm half-convinced that she should go to jail. She deliberately commited fraud in order to drive this girl either deeper into depression, or, more likely, to suicide.
And what the hell is a 47-year-old doing orchestrating elaborate schemes to humiliate a 13-year-old girl. Teenage girls are horrible to each other. It happens...same with boys, to be honest. But you don't dive into helping your 13-year-old get back at another kid, much less a depressed child, because your daughter was called names.
Or maybe...the daughter is so broken up because Megan (depressed suicidal) was calling Sarah (the daughter) what she really is, just in a negative way??? Maybe?
Here's the story: Lori Drew is a 49-year-old mom. Her 13-year-old daughter was called a lesbian by 13-year-old Megan Meier. Drew, her 18-year-old employee Ashley, and her daughter (Sarah Drew) conspired to create a fake MySpace account. This account was for the imaginary 16-year-old boy Josh Evans. They used this account to convince Megan, who suffered from depression and suicidal thoughts, to fall in love with 'Josh'. Then had 'him' turn on her, telling her that 'the world would be a better place without you.' And did this while 'he' 'broke up' with Megan, driving Megan to suicide.
I really don't know where I stand on this. On the one hand, the 13-year-old daughter probably isn't to blame: she really didn't have a whole lot of intelligence, at least looking at what her mom did. But the mom? I'm half-convinced that she should go to jail. She deliberately commited fraud in order to drive this girl either deeper into depression, or, more likely, to suicide.
And what the hell is a 47-year-old doing orchestrating elaborate schemes to humiliate a 13-year-old girl. Teenage girls are horrible to each other. It happens...same with boys, to be honest. But you don't dive into helping your 13-year-old get back at another kid, much less a depressed child, because your daughter was called names.
Or maybe...the daughter is so broken up because Megan (depressed suicidal) was calling Sarah (the daughter) what she really is, just in a negative way??? Maybe?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
