18 Men Arrested for Cross-Dressing

So it seems that recently, 12 states in Northern Nigeria passed stricter Sharia laws (based on Muslim precepts). The power of these laws has remained active for centuries, but had been curtailed under British colonial rule. Now they're back in force. The sharia courts "impose strict punishments such as death for adultery or sodomy and amputation for theft."

Ok, hold on a second. I consider myself to be very tolerant of different cultures and understanding of customs that differ from my own - different practices are often quite intriguing and can tell me a lot about that culture and the ways they think. But I just can't get on board with death for adultery or amputation for theft. Sure, these things are not good to do as they hurt other people (either emotionally or monetarily). But whatever happened to prison (for theft), or exile as a feasible option if somebody does something that doesn't fit with your culture's mores (make it someone else's problem)? What about the Amish practice of shunning? Just pretend the person isn't there, they don't exist for you.

Do you think that the laws against adultery are equally applied to men and women? I'd be really surprised if they were. Historically, women committing adultery have been treated MUCH more harshly than men.

We watch movies like Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and think "oh my god, they're cutting people's hands off" but we "know" that it's a story about a past era, that we've reached a more "enlightened" time (if I can say that without sounding condescending - I don't mean enlightened as in how "we" do things. But rather, enlightened in that we don't force our will physically upon someone else, unless they've done something unmentionable like murder, rape, that kind of thing). But it's still really happening.

So, ok, I'll bet you that cutting people's hands off would be a deterrent for certain kinds of theft (white collar, armed robbery, that kind of thing), unless someone just figured that their plan was so perfect, they wouldn't get caught. But it's the really poor people who are stealing food for their family to eat that will be hit hard. No, I'm not condoning theft. But if the kids are hungry and crying, and there's no work to be had, I don't think that possible amputation (if caught) is going to prevent the theft of some food.

I understand that most religions have a problem with homosexuality. I don't agree with their negative view of it, but they're entitled to feel that it's wrong, I suppose. Just like abortion - people are entitled to be pro life. But my take on it is this - if you don't like it, don't do it. As long as it's not harming anyone, why should they get all in a murderous snit about it? If it's not accepted in their society, that's fine, do the whole exile/shunning thing. But to kill people for being homosexual?

Ok, so this is the extreme. It does say in the article that only one man, a convicted murderer, has been hanged under sharia law since it was enacted in 2002. So it could that adultery, sodomy and theft are punishable by death and amputation on the books only - much like there are some states in the US where there are anti-sodomy laws still on the books (couldn't tell you what the punishment for that is, or what states, just that I've heard that they're there....). But it looks like they are taking these 18 men to trial for dressing as women. Now the question is, if they didn't catch them in any homosexual acts, could they enforce the sodomy laws? I certainly hope not, because death for cross-dressing just seems so far out of proportion as to be ludicrous.

Matrixology - Are you really a Sim?

The New York Times recently reported on a new theory held by Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University, that there is a 20% chance that our world is really the Sims. "Some computer experts" (which ones, I ask you?) have projected that, based on trends in processing power, we will have a computer system by mid-century that "could run “ancestor simulations” of their evolutionary history by creating virtual worlds inhabited by virtual people with fully developed virtual nervous systems." This boils down to making us into an extended game of the Sims. Unlike the Matrix, where people could disconnect, "wake up" from their simulation, it would be nothing be a virtual network made of nothing but virtual brainpower.

Now, let me ask you, 20% chance?! I mean, seriously. It's a very intriguing idea and appeals to me in a philosophical and sociological way. However, to take it seriously, I really don't think so. I think that it certainly could soon be possible to run grand scale simulations in worlds (like Second Life - for more SL info, see my previous post on the subject) from our ancestors eras in a similar way to how we currently enjoy fantastical worlds (take, for instance, the popularity of the World of Warcraft or Ultima Online). Second Life has definitely taken on a whole life and economy of its own, but not to the extent this philosopher is talking about.

It would have to be a seriously powerful computer beyond all imagining to not only control a world of this size (and multiples for different eras), but to also imbue the virtual residents with emotions and with a self-awareness so they would feel like they were in control of their life. I'm picturing a Terminator 3 scenario here, where the virtual minds somehow gain their independence from their puppeteers and nuke the world.

In any event, not likely in my opinion. But an interesting philosophical discussion. Might we now see some "I'm a sim" defenses in trials like all those "Neos" out there who thought the world wasn't real so they could do whatever they wanted?

The Science of Insulting Women

The Freakonomics blog just moved over to The New York Times website. One of their first posts was about studies that have been done about negging - "a move that involves interjecting an insult during an initial conversation with a woman. The motivation behind the insult is to “lower her self-esteem, thus making her more vulnerable to your advances.”" This post has gotten the most comments I've seen on a Freakonomics post in a while, and I couldn't bring myself to read through all of them. After the first three or four posts by men saying that "all women" are attracted to bad men who insult their sense of self esteem, and that women never are interested in nice men who treat them right, I'd had enough.

Sure, there are women out there who like dangerous guys, guys who aren't interested, men who don't treat them right. Sometimes it's a result of their childhood - I have a relative who married a man who insults her quite often, but she's been married to him at least 30 years, perhaps in part because her father was not always the nicest when speaking with her mother. If it's something you grow up with, it may seem like the norm, that may be the example of a "successful" marriage. Who knows?]

But to generalize to say that that's what all women want, it sounds like that commenter thinks he's a nice guy, and has been burned by women interested in "bad boys." Some comments have said that women don't like to be complimented, or treated right. Now, I'm telling you right now, for all the men out there reading this post - yes, we do like to be complimented and treated right! (At least those of us with a healthy sense of self-respect and no bad boy complexes). And no, this doesn't mean we want compliments in every other breath, presents every other minute, and a man hanging on our every word. Because that's just damn slavish and sycophantic. But a man who knows how to use a well-placed compliment, have an intelligent conversation, and has his own interests in life is infinitely more appealing than either of the over-aggressively rude or sycophantic stereotypes.

The other thing I take issue with is the idea that women are only interested in men with status. That that's why they stay with men who insult them. No. No. No. Sure, perhaps women who stay with men like that feel like the men have more status, that's possible. But I think it's also in large part because the men have cut down their self esteem (or preyed on women who already have low self esteem) to such a level that the women feel like they don't deserve any better, or they don't want to be alone and don't have faith in themselves enough that they could find someone better.

I think the idea of trying to teach men who aren't comfortable interacting with women is a good one, but the way this Mystery is going about it just kind of turns my stomach. Teasing a woman just to let her know that you're on the same level as her is one thing, that she's not on a pedestal. But going beyond that into insulting (and to the "mate retention" behaviors also mentioned, such as her around to make sure she's not meeting other guys) sounds to me like it's the guy who has the low self-esteem - he's uncomfortable just being himself and let his conversation and looks attract women, so he has to resort to preying on the vulnerable. And there's someone out there actually making money for teaching men these tactics - books and a tv show, blech!

Scambaiting the Scammers

This just takes screwing with peoples' heads to an entirely new level! (this will take some time to read, be forewarned)

I didn't even know there were people out there scamming the scammers. I've heard anecdotes of people having fun with telemarketers, but this is so far beyond that, it's like Van Gogh compared to a 5 year old's drawing!

I must admit, I did have some twinges of sympathy for the poor guy, and if the scambaiter hadn't reminded me several times during the whole transcript, I probably would've forgotten that this guy was originally a scammer using a poor dying man's photos to garner sympathy (and hard cash). But I definitely give props to this scambaiter for following through with this, over a period of about 10 months, I believe! That's commitment!

Given all the money these guys have probably squeezed out of the unfortunate gullible, this is just a drop on the bucket, a few hundred dollars and some time costs for all the email exchanges. But that time spent writing email, creating the wooden head, the video, and so on is less time the scammer has to take grandma's life savings.

I'm also amazed that there are still people who fall for that Nigerian money scam. Hasn't it been thoroughly outed already? Besides which, even if it were the real thing, who would actually send their bank account information over email? That's one of the cardinal rules of the internet and identity security, not to provide personal details.

Bounty of the Flies

Besides sounding like a William Golding-inspired Mel Gibson movie, I find this new law in a Chinese suburb to be funny just in its ludicrousness.

The article makes a good point, that this law basically just treats the symptom, rather than treating the disease. Wouldn't paying citizens money for dead flies actually encourage them to be less hygienic? That is, if they want to collect money for the dead flies they're turning in, wouldn't they want there to be more flies, so they might create an environment which would draw more flies - cleaning less frequently, leaving food out, etc.

Now honestly, I don't think this is going to create a culture of unhygienic families just to make a few cents off of a dead fly. Most people take pride in living in a clean house (or at least a passably clean one, which in my case means at least you can't really see the dirt). But it's not going to solve the problem that already exists. It's not going to encourage people to clean up their environment more than they already do.

It's like the age-old problem of feeding the hungry - do you give them a food drop, which will feed them for this week, or do you teach them how to grow their own food, which will feed them forever (hopefully, given environmental conditions)? If this suburb in China has a problem with flies and wants to get rid of them, wouldn't their money be better spent on street cleaners to clean up any insect-attracting detritus in the street, street sweepers, water flowing through the gutters (like Paris)? I don't know what the trash disposal system is in China. Is it like the American system of trash cans and dumpsters and disposal trucks coming around once a week? If residents must take their trash to a dump, it's possible they aren't doing this frequently, which would create flies around the collecting garbage bags. If there is trash pick-up, wouldn't it cut down on the flies to have the pick-up happen more often?

There are so many other ways to fix this problem than just throwing money at the result of the problem, rather than finding a working solution so the flies don't proliferate in the first place.

Why is Yawning Contagious?

Why is yawning contagious?

Sure, there's no hard and fast reason why it's contagious. It may remain one of those mysteries, like how to cure the hiccups. But there are several theories.

First mentioned is that it's a method of cooling the brain, to help stay alert and detect danger. So, before you get into a fist fight, try yawning to cool down your brain (hey, who knows, maybe with a cooler brain you'll start thinking more clearly) and give you an edge up on the competition. Just don't let them see you yawn, or they'll do it too and you're leg up will instantly become a level playing field.

Yawning might help maintain vigilance, especially in groups. Does this mean that in my next business meeting, I can yawn openly and widely, and tell my boss that it's a compliment, because I was making sure I remained vigilant in the meeting? On an unconscious level, we realize that our attention is wandering, we're not paying as much mental attention as we should to the task at hand. So we start yawning, not as a means of displaying how tired we are, but as a way to bring our attention back on target.

It would be interesting to know how many times I yawned while typing this post. It didn't occur to me to count until halfway in. How many times did you yawn while reading it, and the article?

"Forget about it. Men's preferences will never change. Fit Light Yogurt" - wtf??!!

Read this article about Brazilian yogurt advertisements.

This is one of the worst ad campaigns I've seen in a while. The fact that they're so overtly playing into the confidence issues of their target audience is just beyond the pale. American advertisers also play into the fact that many women seem to feel the need to diet down to Nicole Ritchie size. But they do it in a more subtle way - focusing on being healthy, enjoying their food (think those yogurt commercials with the two women discussing how good the yogurt is "shoe shopping good" "first kiss good" etc). The ads here are focused more on women getting fit, slimming down, and eating right for their own well being. A process of self improvement.

These Brazilian ads externalize this, they make being skinny a question only of pleasing men. It makes a woman's self-worth dependent upon what a man thinks of her, rather than asking her to be healthy for her own sake. And honestly, those pictures weren't that bad! Especially American Beauty. She just looked full figured.

What really irritates me is the assumption that (1) men won't be attracted to you unless you weigh 100lbs, (2) all men are the same, (3) men won't like us unless we're slim.

First of all, there are plenty of healthy and happy women who aren't beanpole thin. Some women's body types are just naturally more voluptuous and it is unrealistic to expect everyone to conform to the same standard - some people will achieve without batting an eyelash and others will bust their asses trying to squeeze into that size 8 and not be able to enjoy because they're always focused on what they aren't (instead of what they are).

Assumption two - it's just as ludicrous to assume that all men have the same tastes as it is to expect all women to conform to the same body shape. Some men like round women, some like voluptuous women, some like slender women, others like petites, and others like tall women. It's all a matter of taste, environment, and that hard-to-define sense of attraction. And, at least for most of the men I know, I think they would prefer a women who wasn't model thin if it meant she was more comfortable and confident about herself.

Assumption three - men won't find us attractive unless we're slim. For both men and women equally, I find confidence to be much more attractive than whether someone is a size 6 or 12 (or whatever the equivalents are for men's sizes). I've met slim people who are so focused on their weight, or their clothes, or their makeup, that that talk just dominates their conversations to the detriment of all the other (non-self-centered) topics out there. Men sometimes really appreciate a woman who can hold an intelligent conversation.

I think the more important thing to focus on is being healthy. If you eat healthy foods in healthy portions, exercise to maintain your cardiovascular and respiratory health and get enough sleep, you're already on your way to a healthier mindset. And if you happen to weigh more than is the average but are confident about yourself, then there will always be men would will be attracted to you.

One final thing - forget the idea that you have to eat certain foods or be a certain way because of what men (or women) will thing. What's most important is to be happy with yourself and create your own sense of identity. If you do that, you have more to bring to a relationship and less likelihood to feel like your worth is pinned on what other people think of you.

Deer Sushi

Given the shocked faces I get when I tell people I ate horse meat in France, imagine what they'd look like if I had (raw) horse meat sushi!

Japan is known around the world for its sushi - if you ask the regular person on the street what Japanese food is, odds on they're going to say sushi. The increasing rarity of high quality tuna has got to be greatly unnerving for the restaurant industry, rather like it would be for Boston to run low on lobster.

This opens a couple of cans of worms. First, there are the environmental ramifications. With the world's population soaring, people packing tighter into cities (after this year, the majority of people will live in cities). With continued advanced in medical technology, people are living longer and healthier than ever before. As we have more mouths to feed, we put even more strain on the environment (can we say carbon emissions and global warming, anyone?). It's only to be expected that we start to stress our current stocks of fish (both by overfishing and through the mercury contamination from power plant waste). The old adage "survival of the fittest" just isn't appropriate anymore. Seriously, with the technological resources at our disposal, can you honestly tell me that cattle in an abattoir have a fighting chance, and would survive if only they were fit to?

Animals (and plants, for that matter) are becoming endangered right and left. It's impossible to know whether their endangerement, or extinction, will go out quietly, or whether there will be a Butterfly Effect). So, as much as I love eating maguro at my local sushi bar, the fact that it's become harder to come by will perhaps have a positive effect - sushi chefs will start to focus on other fish, meat, and vegetables and help to keep the tuna stock in control and not overfished. Sounds like they've had a good start by passing the lows to reduce fishing already.

The other major issue is one of innovation. And this is huge. Malcolm Gladwell gave a fascinating talk on innovation (as pertaining to spaghetti sauce). If you don't recognize his name, he is the author of two of my favorite books - The Tipping Point (ISBN 0316346624) and Blink (ISBN 0316010669).

The fact that tuna is less available will force sushi chefs to seek out new interesting maki. While I'm not totally convinced about raw horse meat or venison rolls, I'd be very interested to try it, because it's so different. The same things all the time create stagnation of creativity. Granted, sushi is an art form and it's often about simple and clean flavors (I think it's just us crazy Americans who create all these wacky rolls like the Red Sox Maki and Matrix maki). But it seems that any chef who doesn't keep up with the times and strive to innovate will often fall by the wayside (see my blog post on the French haute cuisine environment). While people will always enjoy the classics, it is important to keep the menu fresh and new, the make people cock their heads and go "oooh!" Without innovation, we would not have made the huge strides in nearly every field (especially technology) in the past century.

It's refreshing to see a country taking positive measures to protect the resources it uses, rather than just turning a blind eye and saying "the fish will always be there if we will it to be so." I hope that the rest of the world (especially the US) follows their lead to prevent the mass extinction of the vast number of resources we consume (or waste) on a daily basis.

Virtual Job Interviews?

Imagine going into a job interview, reaching into your briefcase, and handing your interviewer a beer instead of a resume. Then getting a good laugh with the interviewer about it. Sound like an interview gone well? Could very well be.

Back to that in a second. Second Life is like a genie bottle - you rub on one issue and three more come out. So let me divert my attention to a couple other Second Life issues, and then I'll come back to the interviews in a bit.

In the grand tradition of the Sims and Ultima Online, Second Life is the newest incarnation of the interactive role playing game. Come home from work at night, log on, and you've got a new life there at your fingertips. Always wanted to be a shopkeeper? Adventurer? (fill in dream job here)? Second Life is a fast growing economy and some companies are capitalizing on the monetization of the RPG community.

There's been a lot of brouhaha created by these gold farming companies and individuals, but I say more power to them. If they want to sit there and spend five hours fishing to build up a skill, or four hours breaking rocks to quarry rock to build a house (etc, you get the point), then I think they've deserved whatever monetary recompense they can get. Sure, it probably puts the rest of the players at a disadvantage since they don't have the time to put into it. But, if they're willing to pay for the fruits of that skill (buying a posh Second Life house, that kind of thing), then isn't that just the definition of capitalism? It also speaks to the question of work vs. leisure:

If someone is going to sit at their computer all day long, building up their skills and creating a salable commodity, doesn't it then become work rather than fun/leisure? If it's tied into their pay structure and they have to do it to pay their rent, then it can easily become just another job. But just like paying someone to clean your house, do your cooking and laundry, mow your lawn, if you can free up time for yourself, you have more time for other things and there is less of an opportunity cost to that activity.

There have also been cases of crime and violence online. I'm a bit torn on this issue. Rape, in any form, is just not acceptable. And I could see how somebody who was raped in real life could be very traumatized by this happening to them online, forcing them to relive their real-life experience. On the other hand, it is just a game - there are rape scenes in movies which don't have the same backlash as this on Second Life seems to have gotten. I'm sure that people identify with their online characters and feel that they are a bit an extension of themselves. But honestly, I don't feel it would be appropriate to make an online rape a criminal offense. What I feel should happen is for there to be some kind of online judicial system. Perhaps Second Lifers could become sheriffs and judges and have trials and such. If someone is found guilty of rape in the game, they get sentenced to prison time in the game. And that doesn't go by the clock (if they're sentenced to one year, they don't get out one year from that date), they're in prison for one year of the time they're online. If they don't log a year's worth of time in a five year span, they stay in prison. I think that would be a good method to prevent recidivism, because who wants to "play" an online game by sitting in a jail cell?

They could just switch to another game. But if their conviction were solid, the companies could create a kind of IAFIS for IP addresses/email addresses to try to prevent someone convicted in one game hopping to another and doing the same thing. However, this could cause problems is someone is wrongly accused, and then they're cut out of all the games.

Back to the job interviews (and lighter subjects). It's an interesting idea to vet job candidates online. It would definitely be less pressure than a face-to-face, or even a telephone, interview. There wouldn't be the awkward pauses if the interviewer asks a difficult question, and you would have a few moments to compose your answer before replying. At this stage of the game, when Second Life is still fairly new to everyone, it definitely lightens up the process when they can't quite control their avatars to their full potential (floating above the seat, beer vs. resume).

Also, if the job is for a technical position which requires computer savvy, it would definitely filter out the chaff - the avatars which were the most fluid and natural would stand out from the pack. But if this process were used for not technical jobs, I feel it could create a false sense for the interviewers - they might be impressed by how the tech savvy people come across (after all, visuals are very powerful, perhaps as much so as the words they're hearing) and the highly qualified candidates who aren't as familiar with Second Life would not make as good of an impression.

Another potential problem is one of tone (posted by Ohio State University). The actual words you say are the least communicative of all - about 55% of communication comes through non-verbal communication (making eye contact), 38% from the tone of your voice (no whispers in a job interview), and only 7% comes from your actual words. Now, a part of me thinks that it's great that they're vetting people for the actual content of their interview, rather than just their appearance and their non-verbal communication. But the realistic side of me says that no matter what it is they say, what you have to deal with primarily is their personality, their drive, their sense of self and how they interact with others. But hopefully this type of interview will cut down on the number of people who get through the first interview on charisma alone (and have no knowledge base).

Above are many criticisms or potential problems with using Second Life for job interviews. But on the whole, I think it's a great idea for these companies to be embracing this new technology like this. It shows that they're forward thinking, flexible, and they're reaching out to a younger market (and watching their bottom line). As an interviewee, I would be very impressed by a company which had Second Life interviews. Generation Y grew up with technology and has no problem with IMing, watching a movie, talking on the phone and reading all at the same time. Companies are starting to realize that GenY is a force to be reckoned with and that they should talk to us on our level rather than always bringing us to their GenX/BabyBoom trough.


If you're interested in finding out more about Second Life, check out the upcoming book Second Life: A Guide to Your Virtual World by Brian White (ISBN 0321501667), published by Que/Sams in August 2007. (For purposes of full disclosure, I work for the publisher of this particular book)

Doogie Reincarnated

The Over Ambitious Parent has struck again!

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSDEL13094020070621?feedType=RSS

Let's scroll back the years to some centuries ago. Medicine certainly wasn't the same science it is now, what with bloodletting to balance the body's humors and the not-yet-discovered link between bacteria and infection (doctors wash their hands? Whyever for?). I don't know exactly when the first medical school opened, or when it became required to attend, but I'm sure prior to that, doctors-in-training had to undergo an apprenticeship with a doctor so they could learn "everything" they needed to know. This is, in a way, what this 15 year old boy has been doing.

However (and that's a BIG however), the fact that this boy has been assisting and performing surgeries for three years (since he was 12?!) is wrong on so many levels.

First (and most straitlaced) of all), we do now have medical schools which are a requirement to be a doctor (nevermind a surgeon!). These medical school provide the most current knowledge available in medicine. Let's just assume that the father in this situation is about 35-40. That means he went to medical school at least 10 years ago, followed by his internship and residency. Even if he does spend all his time reading the current journals and keeping up with the cutting edge technologies, nobody has enough time in their day to follow everything.

Second, who's to say that this father isn't passing on bad practices to his son? There are quality
controls that go on in med schools and teaching hospitals and supervision by both the attending and resident for each intern, in addition to peer supervision.

Third, and in my mind one of the most important issues, I don't think that a 15 year old would necessarily have the maturity for this. 15 year olds should be out with their friends, crushing on pretty girls/boys, doing homework, and working through the mega-dose of hormones that adolescence gives them. Most teenagers haven't experienced enough of life to really understand, or consider all the implications of, these life and death circumstances. Granted, teens who have lost close family or who have had a life threatening disease themselves might have more reserves of understanding. But with all of the hormonal issues going on already (first loves, self esteem, building a unique sense of identity), I'm convinced that surgery would only add another layer of problems. How would an adolescent deal with having been responsible for a patient dying? It's hard enough for adult doctors to deal with this, let alone a 15 year old. And if it didn't bother them, then what does that say about their emotional development that they've learned so early to be so callous?

Fourth, what pregnant woman in her right mind would allow a 15 year old to do a caesarian on her? No matter how much faith you have in the father as a doctor to supervise the surgery, wouldn't any mother want the best for their child? What if there had been complications created by the 15 year old's technique? And if she didn't know that he would be performing the surgery, how can the father justify that deception? Unless all she wanted was to be the patient listed in the Guiness Book of World Records who had the youngest ever surgeon to operate on her.

It sounds like the father has a serious problem with understanding reality. He says that his son was just handing him instruments. But if that were the case, WHY was he trying to submit the video as an example of the youngest surgeon to perform a caesarian? That seems a bit fishy to me. The investigation will bear it out, I suppose. The fact that the father believes that the censure he has received is due to jealousy just shows how disconnected from reality he is. The fact that he can't understand the ethical and legal ramifications of allowing a 15 year old to (help) perform a surgery speaks volumes for his state of mind - he wouldn't hesitate to do it in the future since he doesn't understand why everyone is reacting badly to it.

I don't know what the Indian process of medical censure is, but I certainly hope that he goes through it and comes to realize the true problems with his behavior.