Sunday, February 11th, 2001
Big news in orgasm research (now that’s an interesting specialty) — Dr. T. Stuart Meloy reports that by implanting electrodes in a female’s spine, he can induce orgasm via remote control.
The description is ghastly: The device is made up of three parts: the set of electrodes which are implanted inside the spinal canal, a connecting cable and a pulse generator, which is about the size of a beeper. The generator is implanted in the upper buttocks, so all three pieces are under the skin. (ABC News)
But none of these worthy reporters explored the technological implications of such an invention. Leno and Letterman probably exhausted the garage-door-opener jokes… but what about the X-10 jokes? What about the bluetooth jokes? There’s such a rich field of possibilities here. Will the pulse generator have an HTTP server built-in, so patients enjoying frequent wireless orgasm can report their status to the web like so many coffee machines and refrigerators?
Also: if the hardware is mounted in your buttocks, where do they put the batteries? Heh, sorry, I couldn’t resist.
There is a dangerous precedent to this research, by the way. When I studied psychology I learned about an experiment in which researchers inserted electrodes in the pleasure centers of rats’ brains, and then provided the rats with a lever connected to the electrodes. Pressing the lever would induce (essentially) orgasm. The rats starved to death. [1, 2, 3]
Tags:
posted to channel: Personal
updated: 2004-04-19 04:57:56
Thursday, February 8th, 2001
This item is of little interest to Bill Gates’ minions (who comprise, I regret to say, about 90% of the web’s population), but Apple aficionados may be saddened to learn that Apple has removed Clarus the Dogcow from OS X.
The dogcow has an only-at-Apple sort of creation myth and has since been documented in an Apple technote, A Nest of Dogcattle.
And now that you are overcome with sadness, you can do your part to save the dogcow! Sign a petition to reinstate Clarus to her (?) rightful place in the MacOS.
Tags:
posted to channel: Web
updated: 2004-02-22 22:49:16
Women.com has a special Valentine’s Day contest, where visitors can vote for the “hottest, most exciting” man on the Internet.
I dug around but couldn’t find a comparable contest to elect the hottest women. Well, why not? Oh, right — because that would be sexist!
Tags:
posted to channel: Web
updated: 2004-02-22 22:49:16
Wednesday, February 7th, 2001
CNET documents the annoying trend employed by low-rent websites: spawning new windows when you try to exit. The new windows contain all manner of advertisements, inducements, and crap you are certain to have no interest in.
I’m told porn sites have been doing this for years. I have no direct experience with this, of course.
One workaround is to surf with JavaScript disabled in your browser. This is not a great solution, though, because too many sites rely on JavaScript for basic site navigation.
As I mulled this over, I saw a potential solution.
First, the technical background… The annoying window-spawning behavior is enabled by an event handler called onunload, part of the JavaScript/ECMAScript language. Any JavaScript statements that appear in the onUnload attribute of an HTML document’s <BODY> or <FRAMESET> tags will be executed when the document is “unloaded” — when the browser window is closed, or when the user follows a link to another page. (Experiment here.)
And now, the solution: browser makers should give users a way to suppress this handler. For example, perhaps by pressing a key on the keyboard while closing the window, the browser can be instructed to ignore any onUnload calls. Or there could be a preference setting. There is a precedent for this: page authors can control whether links open in a new window, or target a specific frame, by giving a TARGET attribute to the <A> tag — and yet the user can override this through a variety of keyboard shortcuts or menu selections, e.g. “open this link in a new window” or cmd-click (on MacOS).
There are multiple benefits: less Internet congestion, fewer browser crashes, less disk space wasted by unwanted browser cache files, less meaningless traffic logged by advertisers, higher clickthrough rates on advertising, and overall less-annoying user experience (not that any of the advertisers seem to care about that one).
Tags:
posted to channel: Web
updated: 2004-02-22 22:49:16
Tuesday, February 6th, 2001
Last week I had occasion to arrange rendezvous with a number of people I had never previously met. The challenge was to establish a rule for identifying one another without undue stumbling around. It is my opinion that the maximum number of false-positives a reasonable person (such as myself) can tolerate is 1 — and personal comfort requires that the potential for false positives is reduced to near zero.
And yet, how can people identify themselves by description? Think it through… Chances are, the one identifying feature that an unknown party is certain to recognize from 30 feet away is the characteristic you are least likely to call attention to. “I have, ahh, a receding hairline and a huge nose”, I might have said, or “I recently set fire to my eyebrows, so I’ll be the guy with bloodied bandages wrapped around his face.”
All the superficial things polite people are not supposed to notice are precisely the stuff of first impressions. They are, I regret to say, the most certain way to identify an unknown person in an unfamiliar setting. “I can tell from the missing front teeth and the apparent colostomy bag that you are the person I am supposed to meet.”
I was tempted to inject some levity into the process — to tell the people I was arranging to meet “I’ll be the guy in bad sunglasses,” and then show up in an Oakley Overthetop headset, or to say “I’ll have a dark blue suit on,” and wear the suit, but also wear a codpiece the size of a casaba melon. Imagine what would be going through the other guy’s mind: “That must be the guy… Wait, what the hell is that thing on his crotch? Yeesh, tell me this is not the guy..!”
And yet, I did manage to meet a number of parties with minimal confusion. Nobody had to admit to debilitating facial tics, bloating, recent constipation, maxillofacial surgery gone awry, etc. At no point did I and any of my rendezvous mates sit for 20 minutes fifteen feet apart wondering if the other guy is the guy we’ve been waiting for. And at no point did I inadvertently meet someone other than the person for whom I was looking, only to find out later that I’d just spent a half hour with some totally random person who vaguely matched the description I’d been given.
Still, there was always that moment of uncertainty… the moment just after eye contact, when you’re either about to extend hands in greeting, or turn away quickly before the other party wonders if you’re just some loon staring at people as a precursor to a religious or political diatribe or, worse, a sales pitch.
Tags:
posted to channel: Personal
updated: 2004-02-22 22:49:16
