Internet: The New Place for Drug Deals

Don't be misled by the title. No one is reporting that the internet is a one stop shop for all drugs. I doubt any drug dealer would be ballsy enough to publicly admit that unless they were looking to get busted. Rather, think of this as something a little more simpler: Domain Names. There has recently been a dramatic boost in the last couple of years in domain names being registered in order to profit off of one drug in particular.


Yea, that's right. Marijuana. One of the hot topics in politics right now. Particularly in California, where in the next week or so, citizens will vote one way or the other on Prop 19. Ooo my bad, did I accidentally place my opinion on the table. Whoops! Anyways, if Prop 19 were to pass, domain names will be need to sell the product online. Afterall, in this day and age, who actually goes to the store anymore if you can buy something online and have it by tomorrow. We're lazy. Plus gas is too high to be wasting it. We can put that money elsewhere... like buying pot. And that's the point. People will be able to buy weed, bongs, treats, and etc. online if Prop 19 passes. Which in turn means people like Kevin Faler will cash in on something he made many people cash out on.

Faler is a former narcotics officer. Long story short, he has over 1,000 registered domain names all dealing with marijuana. He's not the only one either. There are plenty of people trying to make a quick buck by purchasing domain names with the intent to resell them for a far greater amount of money. Some of the domain names include, "marijuanapastry.com", "potfordogs.com, and a whole list of funny and ridiculous names.

In the end, Faler and others believe that selling internet real estate will offer enough money for them to retire, pass money down to their kids, and even buy condos.

Even cops are accepting of Prop 19. No shock since one of them could make a killing, the legal kind, off of its success.

Share

Tweet

Can You Hear Me Now?

The BlackBerry. Or as some people call it, the “CrackBerry.” But who knew that cell phones could be almost as dangerous as using crack? Studies have shown that not only do cell phones give you carpal tunnel, but they can also have other severe side effects on your health, especially brain cancer and tumors.

            Even though the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has not formally come out and said that cell phones cause cancer, that doesn’t mean that the radiation coming from them isn’t harmful. Also, the FCC’s studies are outdated and do not reflect the drastic increase in cell phone users over the past decade; 270 million people in the United States now use cell phones, including children.

            Children seem to be in the utmost of danger zones for this radiation because their skulls have not fully developed yet and the radiation can easily penetrate into their brain cells. Adults are at risk as well, there is no question about that, but children are more susceptible.

            So, I guess the obvious question is what do we do now? Stop talking on our cell phones? I think everyone knows that’s definitely not going to happen; I for one am certainly not. However, in Europe they have already addressed some of these issues by experimenting with, not entirely wiping out radiation, that might be impossible, but just limiting the dose. Also, they are urging cell phone companies, by way of legislation, to make clear that there is some risk to putting a mobile device right next to your brain. (Did you know that you’re supposed to keep your phone one inch away from your ear? Supposedly when you get a new cell phone that comes in the instructions. Do you read that closely?)

            The best solution for now is to just beware and educate ourselves on the potential dangers. Besides, I don’t think kids under the age of 12 or 13 should have a cell phone anyway.    

Share

Tweet

Second Life: A Substitute For Reality?

As we saw in the PBS video, second life is a popular and continuously growing virtual world. Through this world, avatars are created to resemble yourself or even the person that you may wish to be. Facial features are chosen, you can buy clothing and accessories, choose an occupations, etc. all are designed to represent yourself and identify yourself from others. Although it may all seem harmless, I can't help but ask, is there possibly a dark side to this, like we have seen appear in other new technologies?



First of all, I think that having something like this enables people with socialization problems to avoid fixing them. If a person has anxiety of socializing with other people they may use this second life as a way to escape facing their problems/ fears. They would obviously rather stay inside their house and pretend to socialize with people rather than actually having to do so. Is it really healthy to hide behind a computer screen or to develop relationships with a virtual character instead of another human being?

Second, I think that it becomes very easy for people to lose themselves in this virtual world. For many people who are constantly using this, it seems that it would be possible to lose a sense of reality in all of the pretending. Avatars are given the ability to spend actual money in this second life. It has its own currency, but if you wanted to buy something your U.S. dollars would be converted. What kind of a toll is this taking on the economy? With all the problems that we have with the economy at the moment, I'm sure this is not helping at all. I also have a hard time understanding why anyone would actually want to buy something on here. I personally would have a hard time spending money that I worked for on something that is stuck inside the computer. What good does clothing, a cell phone or other electronics, accessories, etc. do for me if I can not actually use them? It just seems like a waste of money to me, I guess everyone's values are different though.

Third, I also feel that safety may be a concern. If people began to make friends though this world and at some point decide they'd like to actually meet in reality, they could be meeting someone dangerous. Just because they portray themselves as a certain person in second life does not mean that this is realistic to the person that they actually are. This could be especially dangerous for young women and children. A harmless meeting could end horribly because unfortunately you can not see who is actually on the other end of the computer.

A fourth problem I found with this was in the business world. It appeared very strange to me that corporations and companies were using this second life for meetings with employees, some of whom they had never actually met. In the business world I think the social aspect of meetings and business deals is essential. How can companies have CEOs communicating with their employees through this world, when they have never actually met or are living in another country on the other side of the world. Is there a safety issue in this too? How can you be certain who you are speaking about these important issues with?

I'm not saying that this second life technology is a bad idea, but where does it stop? How far does it go before it crosses a moral or an ethical line? Socialization is an important aspect of human life and is essential to developing as a person. If second life is eliminating this aspect of life for some people what effect will it have on them in the future?

Share

Tweet

Limewire Shut down!

After a four year legal battle the Federal Court in New York issues a "permanent injunction” on LimeWire. LimeWire is now being held legally responsible of copyright infringement committed over the last decade. A trial will be held in January to determine the amount of compensate the record companies will get for the billions of dollars worth of damages caused by the filesharing company.

Share

Tweet

More Students, More Textbooks

Will there be an end towards books?
NO!
Students rather have textbooks over digital books, blogs, and websites. Students will be the man leading group where books are used most. Though websites and digital books are cheaper than the traditional textbook, but because there is Amazon.com, books are cheaper and more accesible.
Now, where can this lead?
Books will be very hard to get rid of. As time goes by, technology will advance itself . Newspapers will be gone and probably magazines will be gone.
I believe books are here to stay.

Share

Tweet

WHY PAY?

There are over 200 channels on iO TV and yet there fails to be a single show that interests me.

As I was flipping through the channels earlier, I passed show after show that all consisted of the same clichéd topics: sex, violence, and plain stupidity. BORING, I thought to myself. The sitcoms are basically the same story every week just taking place in different situations, and the “reality shows,” which aren’t even real, accomplish nothing but a showcase of irrational behavior.

Where are all the thought-provoking shows? Why is everything so mindless and unoriginal? I’ve actually asked a few people these questions and I always get, “It’s what people want to see…it’s what sells.” But why? Why do people care about who hooked up with who, or who lost the most weight this week? It’s all so irrelevant to real life.

The only things that remotely interested me were the movie channels, such as HBO and Starz. But if I wanted to watch a movie, I could just go down to the local movie store (of course not Blockbuster since it closed down a few weeks ago), or download one on Netflix (if I actually had that), and not have to pay a bill once a month. Which then makes me think: Why am I even paying a monthly bill for dozens of TV channels I don’t even watch? I don’t even like TV, except for Prison Break which ended last year. I’d probably be just as happy with an antenna on the roof and channeling free TV like they did in the old days. (There’s even a website that locates the best broadcaster in the area: antennaweb!)

But the bottom line is that TV has gotten way out of hand. How many CSI’s do we need? or Real Housewives or Law & Order? It’s getting a bit redundant. I feel like the media is shoving these shows down our throats because they’re always on! Season after season; repeat after repeat. When is enough, enough?

Maybe I stand alone on this, but out of all the hundreds of channels I pay for, I’d like for there to be one, maybe two, shows that are completely original and (gasp) artistic! But until that awakening happens, I’ll just focus on attaching an antenna to the roof.

Share

Tweet

Politics in the Media

So clearly I like wrestling. Most of, if not each one of, my posts have mentioned or centered around wrestling (I wonder what I will be writing my final paper on, hint hint) so it doesn't surprise me nor should it surprise you that this post will center around... drum roll please... wrestling!

Except this time, it will more specifically address politics and the media's constant outrage at the "fake sport" I love. For those of you who don't know Linda McMahon is running for Senate in Connecticut this year. She has pumped out a whopping $50 million dollars in campaign spending. Her critics and the people she is running against have constantly used her pro wrestling background against her. Keep in mind, Jesse Ventura, a former pro wrestler was in office not to long ago in Minnesota. So does one's past life reflect what they will do in the future?



When she first announced her decision to run, most in the political-media world laughed it off. Until they found out how much of HER OWN money she was willing to spend. She is still way behind in the polls but she is starting to catch up and now she will have to wrestle away from more than one attacker. In a clear sign of desperation, possibly even jealousy, Nancy DiNardo filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission. Nancy DiNardo is the chairwoman of the Connecticut Democrats.

Everything keeps circling around her WWE past. It is as if the Democrats she is running against want her to divorce her husband. Just because she is running for office, does not mean she must be responsible for what her husband does with his company. Even more so, after settling out of court over 10 years ago, Martha Hart, widow of Owen Hart, is now suing the WWE and many claim it is to hurt Linda's campaign.


So the question remains, should politicians focus on the media gaga or should they focus on the issues at hand? It seems as if politicians are more concerned with saving face than they are with doing their job which is serving the people. Besides, after all these attacks, does this lady seem shaken?


Besides, you gotta love a woman who has enough wit and humor to once have one of the wrestlers employed by her to do a gimmick like this.

Share

Tweet