More Bullshit from Homeland Security

I'm starting to get tired of the warnings about everyday things that Homeland Security is claiming terrorists will use in future attacks. First it was laser pointers. I find it exceptionally hard to believe that the one-in-a-billion shot required to temporarily blind a pilot is something we need to be worried about. While it's true that a recent Slate article made mention of high-powered lasers and their potential to blind pilots, it seems that those scenarios are equally unlikely. And wouldn't the problem be easily solved by placing polarized or otherwise filtered glass in airplane cockpits? Instead, Homeland Security has chosen the alarmist path once again, trying to make everyone paranoid that there are terrorists sitting at the end of runways trying to blind pilots upon take off or landing. The most recent bullshit concerns cheap watches. Some of these watches have hidden cigarette lighters in them. Others have altimeters. There are a few things that bug me about the recent alarm concerning these watches.

First of all, aren't cigarette lighters routinely allowed on planes? I've traveled many times since 9/11, and I've never had a problem with cigarette lighters on planes. No one has ever even mentioned anything about them to me at airport security. If Homeland Security is concerned about cigarette lighters, shouldn't they first move to confiscate cigarette lighters that aren't hidden in watches?

The other thing that bugs me is the singling out of a particular watch brand - Casio.

"Casio watches have been extensively used by al-Qaida and associated organizations as timers for improvised explosive devices. The Casio brand is likely chosen due to its worldwide availability and inexpensive price."

Am I to believe that Casios are particularly dangerous? It's not like there aren't other brands of cheap watches out there. Why single out Casio? I'm sure it wouldn't be terribly difficult for a terrorist to invest in some other brand of inexpensive watch, but Homeland Security wants us to be on the lookout for Casio. I can almost see the corporate folks at Casio freaking out because of the brand damage they're likely to suffer because some fool at Homeland Security decided they needed to be singled out.

Needless to say, this is all bullshit. To what end it's been disseminated to the public, I can't say for sure. Perhaps it's to convince the public that Homeland Security is actually doing something about terrorism and not sitting on its ass. Maybe it's a distraction thing. Who knows?

Why (Free) Online Poker Sucks

I played a few more hands of online poker at Yahoo! today during lunch. While I was scarfing down my South Beach-friendly omelet, I realized that the dynamics of the game are completely thrown off by the fact that folks are playing with fake money. Texas Hold 'Em is supposed to be a game of knowing your risk. If you are dealt crappy cards, you fold. Because if you don't, chances are you're going to run out of hard-earned cash PDQ. You bet only on hands you're reasonably sure you can win.

Unfortunately, when people play with fake money, there's no incentive to play strategically. If you run out of money, Daddy Yahoo just gives you more. So people bet the max before they even get to see the flop. So you can't tell how sure anybody is of their hand because everybody's betting the max.

So all those hands that you would gracefully fold in a real poker game become the shitty hands you let giant wads of money ride on in a fake poker game. Every hand, one person wins big and nine other people lose the same amount of money. After playing several hands, you realize that unless someone is particularly lucky, folks are simply trading money back and forth. No one wins big and no one loses big. If you happen to lose big, Daddy Yahoo fills up your account again, so no worries.

Bluffing is no fun, either. It doesn't matter if you bluff because there are probably five or six other player bluffing alongside you. Why not bluff? It's not real money. Usually, there's one guy with a good hand who wins and nine other folks who are bluffing. So you're not fooling anyone with a good bluff because everyone else is bluffing, too.

Once you realize this, you start to think that maybe you'll accumulate wealth faster than other players by playing only your really good hands and folding on the rest. Then you see the schmucks who win big hands by betting the max on an unsuited 2-6 and somehow getting lucky. And it becomes tough to fold on those crappy hands because it takes 20 minutes to play a hand - people playing with fake money sure do a lot of raising! But people don't automatically raise. Nosiree. They have to make it at least look like they're using some sort of strategy, so a couple people will call, someone will raise, the next guy will call, the next two will raise and so on and so forth until the betting has gone around in a circle so many times it makes your head spin. Then you get to see the flop. Then the betting commences before the turn. If you fold before the flop, you can probably go make yourself a cup of soup in the microwave before the next round starts.

So that's how online poker with fake money works. It's not really poker. Yet, people flock to places like Yahoo! Games by the krillions, eager to sit around playing an emasculated, crappy version of a great game with fake money, with no one really winning and no one really losing and no one really being rewarded for playing strategically because there are no consequences for losing.

Only in America.

NY State Do Not Call Basically Ineffective

I signed up my home number for the Do Not Call list in the fall and I'm on the registry. Yesterday, when I was working from home, I got a call from someone pitching mortgage refinancing, so I told the caller I was on the list and gathered her company's information. Since I was in front of my computer, I filed a complaint online. This morning, someone from the Consumer Protection Board called me at the office to talk about my complaint. He informed me that my complaint was being disallowed because of a loophole in the law. I understood that the law didn't apply to charitable causes, companies with which one has an existing relationship and whatnot, but there's another exemption. And it bugs me.

(a) "Unsolicited telemarketing sales call" means any telemarketing sales call other than a call made: (1) in response to an express written or verbal request of the specific customer called; (2) in connection with an established business relationship, which has not been terminated by either party; (3) to an existing customer, unless such customer has stated to the telemarketer or the telemarketer's agent that such customer no longer wishes to receive the telemarketing sales calls of such telemarketer; or (4) in which the sale of goods and services is not completed, and payment or authorization of payment is not required, until after a face-to-face sales presentation by the telemarketer or a meeting between the telemarketer and the customer.

Number (4) presents a huge loophole. Prett much anything that requires action subsequent to the phone call to complete the transaction is exempt. The gentleman from the CPB explained to me that "face-to-face" exemptions include mortgage refinancing companies, insurance salespeople, vacuum cleaner salesmen who want to come to the house, real estate folks - pretty much anything that requires further action after the call. He also explained that legislation getting rid of this exemption is going through the usual channels.

Pardon me, but doesn't this make the DNC law completely ineffective? Very few products are actually sold via a transaction completed on the phone. Maybe the DNC list will get rid of the guy who calls trying to sell an electric pimple popper or dent puller for your car, but it's not going to stop most of the phone calls that come in.

Thanks for the ineffective legislation, New York. At least the CPB is prompt in calling to tell folks their complaints are being disallowed...

Again, Exercise Some Control Over Your Kids

I brought home a Super Nintendo when I graduated from college. It had been in my room at the fraternity house and it followed me to my first apartment. The Super Nintendo had replaced my NES, which had replaced my Commodore 64, which had replaced my Atari 2600, which had replaced my Telstar Pong game. It was when I brought this machine home from college that I told my mom "I don't think I'll ever outgrow video games." And I didn't. Next came PC games, which I still play to this day. Then Playstation, then Dreamcast, then Playstation 2. I'm still dropping in at Best Buy after work to pick up the latest and greatest, and I'm 32.

And at 32, I'm only four years above the median age for PC and console gamers, according to the Interactive Digital Software Association. I personally know people who are over 50 and play The Sims, I regularly discuss gaming with people who are my age and older, and I think it's about time that people stopped thinking of gaming as something that only young kids spend time with. Those of us who grew up with Atari, Intellivision, Colecovision or what have you haven't stopped playing. I don't know of too many guys my age who don't have some sort of gaming device in their home, whether it's a computer or a console.

Yet, there's a huge uproar over the marketing of violent and sexually explicit games to children. The Grand Theft Auto series is taking flak every day, as are many popular titles. And once again, it's the parents who are making a big stink, crying "Won't somebody think of the children?!" and failing to take responsibility for their parenting.

Video games have a rating system, much like movies and music recordings. When a game has an "M" on it, it means the title is intended for a mature audience. And when you buy your kids rated M titles without checking them out first, you run the risk of exposing them to what many might consider inappropriate material. Period. There's no excuse for failing to take interest in the media your children consume or for failing to give them guidance.

But the parents continue to complain, saying -get this- that these mature products are being marketed to their kids and that their kids are asking their parents to buy these titles for them. And they want action - government action, specifically legislation.

I've said it many times and I'll say it again. The government is not a device to be employed to make the entire world safe for your kids. The first line of defense against exposure to questionable material should always be the parent. No one is forcing anyone to buy rated M titles for their kids. And some of us like coming home from a hard day at work and sitting down for a long session of stealing virtual sports cars and spraying virtual lowlives with virtual gunfire to blow off some steam. We appreciate that there are things in this world that adults should enjoy but kids should not. And I don't want my government telling me I can't have these things because if I have them, kids will want them, too. I don't care what your kids do when they come home from school, just as they don't care what I do when I come home from work.

So quit picking on Grand Theft Auto and all the other mature games out there. They're made for mature audiences and if you're uncomfortable with your kid having something that's made for adults, it's your prerogative (and duty) to use the word "no" every once in a while.