Pinterest has been around for awhile, but in the past couple months it’s gotten considerable online press as the up-and-coming social network. Unsurprisingly, it was just a matter of time before someone found something wrong with the service. If it’s trendy to bash Facebook, why not the new guy on the block?

Alyson Shontell at SFGate tells the story of lawyer and Pinterest user Kirsten, who looked over Pinterest’s terms-of-service (TOS), and quickly shut down her Pinterest account:

She browsed Pinterest’s Terms of Use section. In it she found Pinterest’s members are solely responsible for what they pin and repin. They must have explicit permission from the owner to post everything.

It’s not surprising that Pinterest wants to protect itself as best as possible, but it sounds like the TOS is ignoring fair use in this clause, and is taking the most conservative route possible. Still, Kirsten looked up the fair use clause, and Shontell reported accordingly:

Copyrighted work can only be used without permission when someone is criticizing it, commenting on it, reporting on it, teaching about it, or conducting research. Repinning doesn’t fall under any of those categories.

This is where we disagree; Kirsten herself calls Pinterest an “inspiration board”, which is just another way of saying it’s a “research reference”. When you look at how Pinterest is generally used, it’s to collect information for future projects, current projects, and things users like. In effect, it’s hitting every one of the points Shontell notes: users criticize and comment on things they pin; users report on the things they find; users teach their followers about what they like; and users research projects and log the results on their boards.

Kirsten goes on to assume that the whole affair can only be resolved based on the outcome of Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, which involved a photographer who sued a search engine. The search engine won because it used thumbnail images, not the original work in its entirety.

Thumbnails aren’t always fair use, however. They’re only fair use if the necessary portion of the work is copied and nothing more. Pinterest, however, lifts the entire image from the original source which is not ok.

Pinterest doesn’t lift an entire source either, however. Admittedly, it may be different for photography-specific boards, but the majority of Pinterest users are lifting single images from articles that link back to the source article.¹

Kirsten’s later concern is the TOS section on legal responsibility, which Shontell summarizes:

Basically, if a photographer sues you for pinning an image illegally on Pinterest, the user must not only pay for his or her lawyer, they must also pay for Pinterest’s lawyer. In addition, the defendant must pay all charges against him or herself, along with all of Pinterest’s charges.

We have to wonder how relevant this even is. In most legal cases involving online copyright infringement, the “infringer” is sent a legal letter asking them to take the copyrighted work down. This section is basically saying that if you don’t take it down and decide to go to court, Pinterest will not pay relevant legal fees. That sounds pretty reasonable, and if you get this kind of letter, it’s probably unreasonable to bother with the kind of legal escapades that such action will result in.

Kirsten likens Pinterest to Napster as an enabler of illegal activity. It wasn’t just Napster that went down — 12 year old girls who downloaded music were sued too.

Likening Pinterest to Napster is where Kirsten’s argument entirely breaks down and turns to complete folly; Pinterest isn’t sharing anything that’s not already available on the web from the source, nor is it selling anything. If you’re a photographer and release a picture on the web, why would you complain that it’s posted on another site that links back to your own?

When we thought about Kirsten’s complaints, we read her original piece on it, and then had a sudden realization: Kirsten doesn’t explain the initial use of Pinterest that her Facebook-using photographer pals were taking issue with. All we know is that some photographers on Facebook were complaining that their works were showing up on Pinterest without their permission.

If a copyright holder is arguing that their real-life works are showing up on Pinterest because someone, say, photographed their painting, uploaded it to the web, and linked to it on Pinterest, that’s another thing entirely. Obviously that’s a real issue, and one where legal action is reasonable.

That’s quite a different issue than an artist over at Deviant Art complaining that the painting they posted to online is now linked to from Pinterest also. We’re rather surprised Kirsten didn’t clear this up in her original post, because it totally changes the perpective of her legal concerns.²

Ultimately, there’s no argument here compelling enough to shut down your Pinterest boards, yet. At best, this sounds like a misunderstanding surrounded by paranoia, and at worst an unhealthy dose of fear-mongering.

Similar Posts:

• International Dibs Rulebook – # Preamble ## This constitution is fully endorsed and sanctioned by the International Dibs-Calling C…
• There won’t be a Mac App Store. – At TUAW, Mike Schramm muses over [the idea](http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/weblogsinc/tuaw/~3/V2OrhH…
• Really Simple Syndication is not dead. – 06/23/2011 Shawn Blanc wrote [a nice piece](http://shawnblanc.net/2011/06/rss-v-twitter/ “RSS vs. Tw…

Electronic surveillance (generally referred to as “wiretaps”) are a standard tool in a law enforcement officer’s arsenal. Without this capability, law enforcement organizations simply would not be able to identify key intelligence in complex criminal or national security investigations. It doesn’t take an episode of The Wire to illustrate just what kind of information law enforcement officials would not be privy to if electronic surveillance were not an option, especially as reliance on technology is ever-increasing.

As the New York Times reports, U.S. authorities can be stymied when subjects of investigations use encrypted or peer-to-peer communications. In these situations, law enforcement officials need to obtain a court order to serve the respective service provider. The problem isn’t that this part of the process doesn’t work, but rather that the service provider receiving the order may or may not have the technical capability to provide monitoring capabilities. For example, a service offering secure communications between two parties, may not have built-in mechanisms to decrypt customer traffic. As Cryptography 101 will teach you, this is particularly true if cryptographic algorithms used to encrypt such traffic are worth a damn; good cryptography is mathematically sound. More simply put, if encryption is implemented correctly, then the only way to undermine a cipher is to attempt a brute force crack, as no back-door would be available. As soon as a developer introduces a back-door into an encryption package, then the security of the mathematical algorithm behind the cipher is compromised.

This may all sound academic to the layman, but what certain government officials are proposing is that all internet service providers be required to consider law enforcement requests from the get-go; service providers would be required to implement an architecture such that the respective service could be “tapped” by agencies with proper court orders. The idea is to have every internet service operating domestically be able to provide intercept data to law enforcement without any delay, which is sometimes the case today when a court order is served, followed by the government investing months of time to develop the technical intercept capability the court order requests.

Today’s solution may not be ideal from a safety perspective, as it means some bad-guys will be able to continue their activities for another several months before necessary technical capabilities are developed, but that’s the cost of business and freedom; to require developers to consider law enforcement requests from the get-go is to effectively make every internet service developer a government agent. Why should Joe Developer be forced to spend uncompensated development costs on a particular (possibly inefficient) infrastructure in the event that the government may serve a court order on his company down the road? Not only is this unfair to the developer, but it’s also unfair to the customers, who assume that an advertised product does not secretly contain back-doors that can be exploited. While the government could make use of such back-doors in good faith after a court order is issued, the mere existence of the back-door makes exploitation by bad actors a much stronger possibility. This danger is compounded by the fact that bad guys will know that every internet service would contain a back-door, which means they’ll certainly look for one until it’s found.

The solution here isn’t to force developers to comply to arbitrary design guidelines, it’s to put resources behind the law enforcement agencies requiring such intercepts to take place, such that it doesn’t take several months to develop a particular intercept capability. This means hiring more and/or better developers on the government payroll, paying them rates competitive to private industry, and compensating companies served with court orders to develop the capabilities the government needs.

It makes sense for private companies to consider electronic surveillance requests when developing their products, because if served with a respective court order, they might not want to deal with the headache that retroactively developing an intercept capability will entail. But that decision, to design a service around a court order that may never appear, should be left to the developers, not the government. The government’s job, meanwhile, is to work with internet service providers to develop the tools necessary to meet court order requests, and if they think bad-guy use of a service is possible down the road, then they should work on developing the right tools well in advance, and not wait for the court order to be realized before intercept tools are explored.

For example, how late into the game did authorities determine that Faisal Shahzad was using a service the government couldn’t intercept? If it was a service as commonly employed as Skype, then why weren’t intercept tools developed well in advance? Any tech blogger out there could come up with a list of promising internet services, especially those used for communication. That’s the type of list that should proactively be looked at by the government in order for appropriate tools to be developed, whether or not their employ is immediately evident.

Similar Posts:

• Poor journalism perpetuated on FISA issues. – We’ve followed Ars Technica’s take on the FISA for a long while now, and consistently shake our head…
• Why Apple pulled the WikiLeaks app. – God forbid Apple enforce its app store rules and pull the controversial WikiLeaks application. It’s …
• State of the Internet. – I stumbled across an interesting article entitled [The Internet Power Grab](http://www.fastcompany.c…

Yesterday we caught wind of Paul Karl Lukacs getting detained at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) after returning from China this past April. It began with a simple question and answer.

“Why were you in China?” asked the passport control officer, a woman with the appearance and disposition of a prison matron. “None of your business,” I said. “Excuse me?” she asked. “I’m not going to be interrogated as a pre-condition of re-entering my own country,” I said.

And of course, this spiraled about where you’d think it would. Lukacs followed other requests, like moving his bags, providing ID, and following officers, but he refused to answer any questions. And though admirable at some level, at least in the sense of bringing awareness to an overlooked issue (citizens have a right to return to their own country unconditionally), it’s hard to follow this series of events and not think Lukacs wanted to profit from his 15 minutes of fame. Otherwise, why be so curt rude with the passport control officer? Lukacs could easily have responded with, “With all due respect, I’m not required to answer that question as a pre-condition to re-enter my country of citizenship.” Nor did Lukacs, in his blog narrative, seem to suggest that he made any effort at all to be nice to passport control, which may not be a necessary course of action, but a sensical one given that Lukacs knew he was about to start a chain reaction of shit.

But what’s worse is Lukacs’ take-aways from the experience, which run afoul of common sense and paint Lukacs with a degree of ignorance.

2. They’re Keeping Records. A federal, computer-searchable file exists on my refusal to answer questions.

Lukacs assumes that there’s simply a record of him not having answered questions like these before, but fails to consider the possibility that the records exist to document contentious interactions between passengers and security. And “contentious” is the right word in this context, because as we noted earlier, Lukacs didn’t address the issue in an amenable way, but rather in a manner with no outward regard for anyone else, without even attempting to explain, in detail, why he took the stance he did; if all Lukacs did was repeat his “pre-condition” line, it’s no wonder he ruffled feathers.

3. This Is About Power, Not Security. The CBP goons want U.S. citizens to answer their questions as a ritualistic bow to their power. Well, CBP has no power over me. I am a law-abiding citizen, and, as such, I am the master, and the federal cops are my servants. They would do well to remember that.

Why does Lukacs believe that airport security has a set of guidelines designed, for no other reason, than to force U.S. citizens to “bow to their power”? Doesn’t that seem rather, well, schizophrenic? No doubt, there’s a degree of “mall-cop” syndrome among some airport security employees, but that phenomenon is not universal. Just because Lukacs doesn’t understand why certain questions are asked, doesn’t mean they’re intended to be malicious. Lukacs expresses his ignorance (arrogance?) further by using the slang term cop instead of using the respective individual’s actual titles. An emotionally charged rant or not, the use of “cop” is demeaning, as it suggests that law enforcement officers are merely individuals charged with capturing or snatching people – precisely the Orwellian motif that Lukacs is channeling.

What we find peculiar is that the core of Lukacs’ message is noteworthy, and yet instead of finding an appropriate way to communicate his observed deficiencies when United States citizens cross back into the United States, he makes a mess of the whole affair. He does a better job of explaining his message in his followup post about the ordeal.

A federal judge in Puerto Rico – a territory sensitive to the rights and privileges of its residents’ U.S. citizenship — said it best: “The only absolute and unqualified right of citizenship is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States; a citizen cannot be either deported or denied reentry.” U.S. v. Valentine, 288 F. Supp. 957, 980 (D.P.R. 1968).

One would think that Lukacs could have paraphrased this appropriately when standing before the passport control officer, but what’s likely is that Lukacs decided to remain silent upon the passport officer’s questioning on not much more than a whim, and only later found a way to intelligently argue his point. That’s not to say he didn’t have a basis for his decision, merely that it was executed extremely poorly, much like some of his later commentary.

CBP officers are law enforcement… who can detain you, arrest you and testify against you in criminal court. You place yourself in jeopardy every time you speak to them about anything. CBP officers are not your friends. CBP officers treat returning U.S. citizens as potential criminal defendants. You should likewise treat them as if they were corrupt cops on a power trip, targeting you to goose their arrest statistics. The best way to protect yourself against their depredations is to refuse to speak to them or to answer their questions.

Here, Lukacs alleges that because law enforcement officials have the authority to detain, arrest, and testify, that you ought to treat them as “corrupt cops on a power trip,” and refuse to speak to them as a form of protection. The problem is that this conclusion is not deductively valid, and at best, it’s a fallacy of hasty generalization.

If a federal officer claims you lied to him, you can be arrested and charged with the crime of making false statements… “Wait,” you ask, “what about telling the truth?” Doesn’t work. If, in the course of your conversation, you mis-remember something or speak inarticulately, you can now be arrested. Innocent mistake? Prove it in court after being jailed, charged, tried and paying for a lawyer. Cardinal Richelieu is alleged to have said, “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” That’s also how the false statement charge works. Any cop or prosecutor can concoct a “lie” from your statements. The only way to protect yourself from a false statement charge is to refuse to speak to federal law enforcement officers.

Does anyone at this point really believe that Lukacs is firmly grounded in reality? That law enforcement officers are arresting people because they can, based on a “loophole”? Following Lukacs’ reasoning, you’d think we’re all living in Orwell’s 1984 and should fear the thousands of “cops” whose job it is to arrest random people who don’t show proper fealty to the empire. We do not live in an era where we are prone to arrest because of some imaginary inquisition.

But Lukacs at least has the pretense to respond to being called “rude.”

To the authoritarian mind, there are only two responses to a demand: submission or defiance, and anything less than total submission is defiance. A Lutheran grandmother from Savannah with manners from an antebellum finishing school would be hassled if she refused to answer CBP’s questions.

Only, the reality is that we’re not dealing with a mechanical “authoritarian mind,” but rather with security personnel who are unequivocally human. Perhaps if Lukacs had been polite, he still would have encountered push-back, but likely, his treatment would have been better, and the whole process quicker. Appealing to reason, and emotion, is a common factor in charismatic individuals, who undoubtedly get their way over uncharismatic people in most social situations. Lukacs, quite clearly, is of the latter ilk.

Further, why is politeness a one-way street? Many commenters relayed stories about rude, abusive, mean and intrusive CBP officers. The entire cop ethos is based on intimidation and domination.

Politeness isn’t a one-way street, but in this situation, Lukacs was the one seeking a specific outcome, and since the obstacle in that outcome was the passport officer, then there’s more reason for Lukacs to be polite. (Never mind the fact that passport officers are likely advised not to make much small-talk with travelers in order to keep moving lines along, and that their whole job consists of repetitive questions and procedures. That’s not to say that they should be mean, but rather that it’s expected that they be curt. Lukacs’ response, however, was not expected, and should have followed with some deeper explanation.)

But Lukacs is, as we noted earlier, the type of person who likes to paint figures of authority negatively. This is abundantly clear in his belief that the fundamental values of a law enforcement officer is based on intimidation and domination, which, if anything, ascribes to Lukacs a heavily distorted perception of civil servants who happen to wear a badge; not only does Lukacs not respect law enforcement, but he cannot fathom the possibility that people would enter that line of work with the desire to do good, and thwart evil, because they must inherently be bad people who want to intimidate and dominate others.

In the end, it’s hard to cheer Lukacs’ actions at SFO, as it seems he’s more concerned with making the point that all government officials are corrupt and seeking to subjugate the masses under a reign of fear, rather than address his final point that “Travellers who have presented proof of U.S. citizenship should not be detained for refusing to answer questions.” Maybe Lukacs was never taught that “you can catch more flies with honey,” but maybe it’s time he learned, since he clearly has a couple good messages to pass on. But how about he do it constructively, and perhaps try to figure out why certain procedures are as they are, instead of focusing his ire on the guy at the bottom of the totem pole? Why invalidate your point by burying it in a flurry of hatred and Orwellian gospel?

Similar Posts:

• The Intarweb becomes cyber-earth. – In a beautiful fit of nationalistic pride for local laws, it looks like the cyber-police are getting…
• Redesigning internet services for Big Brother. – Electronic surveillance (generally referred to as “wiretaps”) are a standard tool in a law enforceme…
• Who to trust less: governments, or corporations? – When someone residing in Europe pointed out to us how distraught they were that online companies lik…

When we decided to adopt an American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT), we knew that we’d be fighting an uphill battle against the ignorant masses. Thanks to exaggerated, biased media reports that sell their stories by promoting fear-mongering, the press has demonized a number of dog breeds under the “pitbull” label. It’s unfortunate for a variety of reasons, not the least which is the euthanizing of hundreds of “pitbulls” in shelters across the United States.

While we did a fair amount of research into the APBT and related breeds, it’s since become more and more obvious to us that the media is still on its mission to place blame on the wrong parties. The Michael Vick story helped bring certain elements of the issue to light, but the damage to “pitbull” breeds was done by Sports Illustrated years ago, and the damage likely won’t be undone for many years to come, if ever. And it’s not just the media, but regular folks who regurgitate untruths because they simply don’t know any better. For the purpose of promoting facts, let’s clarify some points for those whose knowledge of “pitbulls” is based entirely on hearsay and partial information.

First off, there is no “pitbull” breed. The media lumps several breeds under this label, to include the APBT, American Bulldog, American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and others. This even includes mastiff mixes and other mutts. Basically, any dog that vaguely visually resembles a stocky, yet athletic dog, similar in appearance to the APBT, is designated a “pitbull.” Interestingly, the APBT is the only breed with “pitbull” in its name, and it’s the second smallest of the aforementioned breeds. In fact, of those breeds, only the American Bulldog typically exceeds 85lb in weight. Stories of 100+lb pitbulls refer to mastiffs or mastiff mixes. The APBT, for example, maxes out at around 60lbs for a male. APBT’s on the lower end weigh as little as 30lbs. But to understand the “pitbull,” one has to know more than its size.

A little history.

One of the first things anyone will tell you about the “pitbull” is that it was bred to fight other dogs, but this is only a half-truth. To understand the whole picture, one has to go even further back in history. All of the aforementioned breeds have a common ancestor: the old English bulldog. This bulldog breed weighed 45 pounds average (the median weight for an APBT), and was a working dog that technically no longer exists. It was also the father of the modern-day English Bulldog, which is derived from a cross-breed of the old English bulldog and the Pug, and further bred for certain aesthetic elements, resulting in today’s rather unhealthy breed. Its ancestor, on the other hand, was a very powerful, agile, working dog.

The old bulldog breed was named after a sport that placed the breed in high demand: bull-baiting, a sport later outlawed. Mind you, it was also used for other working tasks of the era, to include pulling loads, working cattle, and other farmhouse activities. Nonetheless, the popularity of bull-baiting made the old English bulldog a popular breed, and it is said that the breed was derived of smaller mastiff stock, later bred with greyhounds to increase agility.

The sport of bull-baiting required two important factors, which remain with modern-day APBTs and many “pitbull” breeds. Firstly, strong jaws were required in order for the dog to grab ahold of a bull’s snout and hold on despite any movement by the bull. It is important to distinguish strong jaws and the behavior to hold on at all costs with “lock-jaw,” however, which is a myth. Where the myth of “lock-jaw” originated, we don’t know, but there is no physical mechanism for a dog to “lock” its jaws in a bite. In fact, “pitbulls” don’t have exceptionally stronger bite strength than other dogs, but merely retain the knack of holding onto a target. Most other breeds, when confronted, have a tendency to snap, gnash, slash, and tear. Secondly, “gameness” was required to confront an enormous, bucking bull. This fierce courage would become an important trait for a bulldog’s success in the “pit.” Note that the “pit” in “pitbull” refers to a hole that the bull, and bulldog, were placed into for bull-baiting. It does not refer to a dogfighting pit.

When bull-baiting was banned in 1835 by British Parliament, the bulldog’s popularity declined. Around that time, dog-fighting began to rise in popularity, and it was then that the bulldog was bred with trace amounts of old English terrier in order to increase the breed’s agility. These terriers, too, were known for their gameness. The resulting breed, still quite similar to the bulldog of old, became known in the US as the APBT, while in England, it was named the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. By the 1960s, dog-fighting was banned in most US States, with the last State signing off on the ban in 1976.

The American Staffordshire Terrier is of the same stock as the APBT and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, only bred further for the show ring (and to distance the breed from dog-fighting). The APBT and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, meanwhile, remained working dogs. While they were favored by dog-fighters, they were still used for a variety of working purposes, much like their bulldog ancestors. In fact, so respected were these dogs, that the US adopted the APBT to symbolize America: friendly, courageous, hard-working, and loyal. Indeed, the APBT was considered such a good family dog, and so good with children, than it was referred to as the “nanny dog.” The dog in The Little Rascals: yeah, it was an APBT.

How was the APBT’s reputation not marred back then, despite dog-fighting still being legal in the United States? One reason is simple: traditional dog-fighting did not tolerate human-aggression. In a typical dog-fighting ring, not only were there two dogs, but there were at least two people inside the ring as well, constantly re-positioning their respective dog’s bites for scoring purposes. With human hands in such close contact with fighting dogs, mid-fight, signs of human aggression were not tolerated. If such aggression materialized, the dogs would immediately be put down. Thus, the only fighting dogs that were further bred were those without any signs of human aggression. So it was no mystery that these same dogs, fierce in the ring against other dogs, would be very good household companions. After the ban on dog-fighting was put in place, dog-fighting naturally declined. Most APBTs involved in the sport were re-integrated in the general house-pet populace, along with their non-fighting APBT brothers, and their American Staffordshire Terrier cousins. Since, the APBT has continued to excel as a working and family dog.

Today, dog-fighting lives on, primarily in low-income, high-crime areas. Dog-fighting is linked to the drug trade and violent gangs, and it’s no surprise that most dogs used in the ring for this purpose lead pretty awful lives, not just when they fight, but in their daily lives as well. They are generally uncared for, malnourished, and never properly socialized or trained. Sadly, APBTs are often still favored for the sport, because what made them great at bull-baiting, and in the dog-fighting of earlier days, also make them great at dog-fighting today: their bite-and-hold, gameness, strength, and agility.

Regarding aggression.

Sites like dogsbite.org suggest that “pitbulls” are dangerous, but in actuality, sites like dogsbite.org lie. In this case, it’s a matter of the site owner having been attacked in the past, and now going on a rampage against “pitbulls” out of ignorance. Truth is, the “facts/conclusions” on those sites are made up, and not actually supported by purposeful studies, if any real studies whatsoever.

Based on the history above, there’s an obvious correlation between dog-fighting and APBTs, even though it’s not what APBTs were specifically bred for. Moreover, other dog breeds were used in dog-fighting too. However, the APBT’s traits have made them a choice breed for the bloodsport, in much the same way the breed excels at other working tasks: the “Superdog” title is used to describe any dog that has earned UKC titles in four areas open to all breeds, namely conformation, agility, weight pull, and obedience. Twenty of 47 Superdogs have been APBTs, and nine others Staffordshire Bull Terriers. That means over half of all Superdogs are of the same bulldog/terrier stock, illustrating just how intelligent, athletic, and flexible these dogs are. Similarly, three out of nine UKC Ultradogs were APBTs.

But back to aggression, the CDC’s Dog Bite Fact Sheet draws no conclusions based on breed.

A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years… It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic… There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) concurs. For a longer read, The Pit Bull Placebo has additional facts supporting the CDC’s and ACMA’s claims.

Still, those who claim that the APBT is aggressive relies on the APBT’s dog-fighting past. But as the KC Dog Blog points out, it’s been over 70 years since the American Staffordshire Terrier was formalized, and with most State bans against dog-fighting being enacted in the 1860s, one can reasonably argue that there have been at least seven generations of dogs that were not bred for the ring, so even if a genetic disposition for canine aggression existed, it likely wouldn’t exist today.

And even if such a genetic disposition were scientifically proven to exist in most APBTs today (it hasn’t), it still wouldn’t indicate any level of human aggression, and if anything, would likely debunk any claims of human aggression at all, considering that the very practice of dog-fighting would have increased canine aggression at the expense of human aggression.

So then why does the media focus so highly on “pitbulls”? Well, for one, the media doesn’t care about the truth: sensational headlines sell papers. And really, if the average person can’t differentiate between breeds, what makes anyone think that a journalist can? In fact, DNA testing of dog breeds suggests that visual breed identification is only about 12% accurate. That’s why most shelters refer to any medium-to-large size, black dog as a “black lab mix,” and why “shepherd” mixes are unusually common. The reality is that aesthetic breed-specific traits are notoriously difficult to identify visually, which is why the media lumps so many breeds into the “pitbull” category, despite the fact that many “pitbull” dogs demonized aren’t even of the same bloodhound/terrier stock. This, of course, brings us again to the 100+lb “pitbull” stories, which are in all likelihod mastiff mixes, else dogs from “backyard breeders” who have spent years developing ill-tempered, unhealthy breeds for certain aesthetic characteristics (i.e. low, stocky build, bent-out shoulders, etc). For those who do argue genetics, note that most of these larger “pitbulls” were bred with mastiffs, which were not bread for any human bite-inhibition.

Don’t blame the breed.

The media isn’t just wrong to demonize based on breed, it’s wrong for forgetting what real investigative journalism is. If visual identification of breeds doesn’t work, then why not look for facts that do correlate between dog attacks? The recent killing of a two-year-old girl in Virginia has elements common to similar news stories.

1. The dog was a “resident” dog, not a family dog. In other words, it was not part of the family routine, but instead left outside and not fully integrated into the family.
2. The dog was chained up. This is generally considered a poor way to restrain a dog, is unhealthy, and yet by many dog-fighters, is considered good practice to toughen up a dog and build strength.
3. The neighborhood the incident took place in was below the poverty line, suggesting that the family likely lacked the education, and means, to raise a dog properly. In fact, the dog was probably malnourished, and was probably not routinely taken to the vet, either.
4. The family was obviously negligent. If a two-year old child can wander outside on its own and escape it’s mother’s watch, then imagine what little care the family had for the dog in the first place.
5. Given the family’s financial situation, it’s highly unlikely that there were any lineage papers for the dog, so there’s absolutely no evidence of breed identification in this case, bringing us back to the limitations of visual breed assessment. For all we know, especially since there are no pictures of the dog readily available on any site reporting the attack, the dog was a chihuahua. Aside from the dog’s age, was there anything descriptive about the dog noted, other than that neighbors (who were similarly ignorant) referred to the dog as a “pitbull”?

What all of this comes down to, like many other things, is education. If we had our way, we’d require any potential dog-owners to acquire a license before adopting a dog, to prove that they have the means, and education, to properly care for their pet. (Indeed, this should probably be extended to children also, but let’s discuss one thing at a time.) With no desire to truly incorporate a dog into one’s family dynamic, and no plans to properly train and care for a pet, one does everyone a disservice, and it’s no surprise that a child has died from these circumstances. While the investigation into this last specific case is still ongoing, I wouldn’t hesitate to pass a good chunck of the blame onto the parents here, and file criminal charges against them.

In any case, let’s stop with the stereotypes: with experts concluding that there’s no evidence to justify breed specific legislation, let’s end the “pitbull” hate.

Similar Posts:

• Overcoming Apple TV’s file-type limitations. – We really want to like the new Apple TV. For one, it’s cheap for a media center at only $100. Two, i…
• The Gracie let-down. – I meant to post sooner about last Saturday’s long-awaited showdown between Matt Hughes and Royce Gra…
• Hillary not a gamer. – When Hillary Clinton was elected U.S. Senator out of lovely New York, I got the hell out of Dodge. I…

When questioning the legal implications of open wi-fi network usage, Computer Technology Review (CTR) posted a fair summary of the issue last month. CTR noted that relevant laws in this area aren’t really that relevant at all, since they predate wi-fi usage and were established instead to combat blackhats from gaining unauthorized access to computer systems for the likely purpose of malevolent action. Today, the issue is muddied because not all wi-fi networks are intended to be secure.

A person might not password protect their Wi-Fi network because they believe in open Internet access and they welcome others using their network. Other people might not password protect their Wi-Fi network because they forgot to do so or lack the technical skill. These people may not want others to use their Wi-Fi networks. Due to the mixed views people have in regards to open Wi-Fi access, it is impossible for someone to distinguish which open Wi-Fi connections are for the benefit of society and which are open merely due to a person’s failure to install protections.

In many cities, it is not uncommon to find open wi-fi networks for free public use, often with names not necessarily indicative of this purpose. Similarly, these same cities are home to networks that appear open, but are heavily restricted. The SSID of a given wireless network is simply not a good indicator of the network’s purpose, because SSIDs can be arbitrarily named, and can intentionally be made deceptive. Quite simply, knowing that sharing a broadband connection is legal, and that some wireless networks are open with the intent to be shared publicly, roaming computer users have no inherent ability to determine which networks are intended to be private. While this may be seen as a negative trait to those arguing against the legality of open wi-fi usage by the public, it’s a merit of the wi-fi framework: why should wi-fi equipment require the broadcasting of a “private” versus “public” flag when there are already numerous options for network administrators to prevent unauthorized usage. For one, not only can wi-fi operators password protect their networks to prevent public use, but they can also prevent a given network’s SSID from broadcasting at all. And then there’s other network obfuscation techniques such as changing one’s wireless network frequency and/or channel. In other words, the 802.11x framework already contains numerous mechanisms for denying access to the average computer nomad.

Legally, it’s folly to prosecute access of an open wi-fi network. If the accessing agent continues to engage in malevolent behavior once on the network, there are plenty of laws on the books to punish the individual in question. And that’s precisely why there’s been little headway in making simple wi-fi access illegal: it’s a grey area that favors the roaming computer user, not the network administrator. We simply don’t need additional laws curtailing wi-fi access because the social context of access, and the administrative options of wireless routers, already alleviate these concerns where existing computer crime laws are not applicable.

People who are supportive of laws criminalizing access of open Wi-Fi networks have compared accessing an open Wi-Fi network to walking into a person’s home just because the door was unlocked. However, the act of walking into a person’s home uninvited is commonly known to be a crime, and while it may be similar to a person hacking into another’s computer network through a firewall, it is not similar to merely accessing a Wi-Fi signal outside of someone’s home or business. Open Wi-Fi connections are more like open radio signals or even music being played inside a business or a home that can be heard outside. The radio signal and/or music has come to you, you have not actively pursued access to it without authorization.

Perhaps the crux of the matter is really about effort taken by the network owner in preventing unwanted use. Most internet service providers do not include wireless hardware with their equipment offerings. DSL and cable companies provide a modem requiring an ethernet connection. This means that end-users must specifically opt into using wireless equipment, usually by purchasing a wireless router. As soon as thisis done, the burden of securing the wireless network is on the broadband subscriber. We can argue that such routers should, perhaps, default to a setting in which one’s SSID is not broadcast, or with a password pre-set. However, since every router comes with a manual describing its settings, to claim ignorance that one simply didn’t know that a random person could gain access to one’s network without making the appropriate changes, is folly. After all, the very nature of wi-fi is explosive – radio frequencies emitted from routers are generally designed to be sent in all directions, even through walls. While wi-fi blocking paints (lead and otherwise) are available, drastic measures like these need not even be taken: a simple virtual toggle, explained in a user’s router manual, does the trick just fine. If you don’t want your neighbors watching your TV through your window, then close your curtains. The price of living in a populated area means taking additional steps to preserve your privacy.

That said, there’s still an ethical factor to this equation. If we acknowledge that the real burden is on the network owner, because he is the one responsible for the use of his hardware, we can still question the morality of hogging a router’s bandwidth. After all, just because it’s legal for someone to access a random, open wireless network, does not necessarily make it ethical to burden that network with bitorrent traffic. After all, if the network is indeed expected to be utilized by the public, is it fair for one user to significantly impact the performance of the network at the expense of other users, to include the owner himself?

In a perfect world, every network operator who wanted their network to remain private would not broadcast their SSIDs, enable password protection, and enable filtering of connections by known MAC addresses. Similarly, all networks intended for public use would be named after some variation of “Public Wireless 001″. Since the world’s not perfect, however, it’s up to everyone who runs a wireless network at home to learn how their equipment functions, and configure their networks appropriately. Similarly, we nomads of the digital age need to be aware that we’re not alone, and minimize our bandwidth footprint when network-squatting. At least until there really is a ubiquitous wireless shield around the globe.

Similar Posts:

• AT&T a pain-in-the-ass for T-Mobile customers. – It seems like every few weeks, T-Mobile HotSpot subscribers are getting the shaft from AT&T at S…
• Free wireless broadband? – The answer: yes. As if that’s not the best part, it’s a trend that appears to be expanding, from Ath…
• Power armour ala Starship Troopers a reality? – Alas, the Starship Troopers movie didn’t include the wrockin’ powered armour from the book, but chan…

The New York Assembly is considering legislation that would prevent underage gamers from buying video games that perpetuate racial stereotypes, reports Kotaku. Talk about unfairly targeting video games. We wonder if the NY Assembly is considering the same type of ban on music videos, rap songs, television shows, movies, et al. Or, how about setting up a task force to hit the streets and prevent people themselves from perpetuating stereotypes? Ticket bad Asian drivers, baggy-pants-wearing black teens, beer-drinking Germans, Camaro-driving southerners, vegan Californians, etc.

The very idea of restricting media based on its portrayal of certain characters is painfully ignoring the reality that individual groups perpetuate stereotypes on themselves every single day.

Similar Posts:

• Air-car! – The Frenchies are always coming up with crazy ideas, like stuffing pastries with white creamy fillin…
• Shotgun Rules – Note: These rules were compiled from a variety of sources on the Internet, and modified for best rea…
• Volkswagen’s rally car that isn’t. – I’m still kicking myself in the ass for not having purchased a Volkwagen (VW) R32 when I was car-sho…

We’ve followed Ars Technica‘s take on the FISA for a long while now, and consistently shake our head when we read their latest thoughts. That’s not to say that there aren’t bits of truth in the respective commentary, but Ars Technica’s writers have become grossly negligent when it comes to FISA reporting. That’s not to say that their reporting is any worse than what we see from other news outlets, merely that we began following Ars Technica many years ago because of their consistently well-informed commentary on technical articles. That’s one of the reasons, after all, that we applied to moderate their gaming forum, and why we wrote for Ars Technica in the past.

Something happened, however, when Ars Technica expanded their staff and began reporting on non-technical matters; Ars Technica is still a great authority in many technical areas, their growth has negatively affected their overall expertise, and this is clearly seen in their FISA-related posts. With Ars Technica’s recent purchase and explosion into the media landscape, it is no longer the little hobbyist website it once was, and so it’s painful to see them stray so far from what respectable journalism should be.

Let’s take a look at Timothy B. Lee’s recent post on the subject, entitled “The new FISA compromise: it’s worse than you think“. This isn’t the first time a headline sets the tone for the rest of the article, and no doubt, in this case, it’s a biased one. We admit that there’s a certain stereotype that holds true with techies, and we’re not talking about the massive downloading of porn or the wearing of pocket protectors. Rather, we refer to the culture’s open distaste for anything government-related, which is in no small part derived from the hacker mythos that many techies subscribe to (e.g. phreaking, breaking into networks, reverse-engineering, circumventing DRM, etc). In other words, many of the esteemed activities of techies involves butting heads with the government, because many of these activities are, on paper, illegal.

Given the inherent conflict between an entity that makes and enforces laws and those who, at minimum, simply wish to explore what is technically possible even if it means countering the law, it doesn’t take much for a journalist to win techies over to an anti-government position. That’s especially true when pop culture routinely describes the government as corrupt, insincere, and the penultimate bad guy seeking to oppress the innocent. (Take The Matrix for example, which paints the Agents as the enforcer of oppression and slavery, which is an interesting change of pace from the Capone days, when government agents were revered as the good guys.)

In other words, most techies are inherently anti-government from the get-go, because they see the government as standing in the way of their freedoms. That’s all fine and good, but this position doesn’t need perpetuating, especially from someone who considers themselves a journalist. Yes, sensational journalism is everywhere, but that’s a sad force that indy journalism is capable of counteracting. Ars Technica, which sprang from the ether as such an indy medium, should be just as factual now as it once was, and if they don’t have the expertise on a particular topic, then they should leave the topic be and focus on what they do know about. Ars Technica is, after all, a web site about technical things, and while FISA techniques may involve the technical in regards to topics like the infamous wire-tapping by government entities, the discussion offered by writers like Lee isn’t on the technical techniques involved (which would arguably be more interesting to a techie audience) but on the law and legality of the authorizations. That’s not to say that public knowledge of the FISA authorization process is necessarily easy to obtain, because the FISA is inherently a classified set of provisions, but nonetheless, understanding its intricacies is what investigative journalism should be about. Instead, what we see from authors like Lee is a “doom and gloom” scenario that can only be described as fear-mongering.

For most all FISA-related articles one can find online, the authors barely do the background of the topic justice. After all, how many readers understand the actual history of the FISA before 9/11? Why does it exist? Why is final approval done through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court instead of a court of normal federal judges? What federal entities are authorized to propose new FISA warrants? What are the steps necessary to do so, and how do they differ (if at all) from conventional search/surveillance warrants?

Rather than focus on the meat of the what/how behind the FISA, the media is content with making sweeping statements, such as those Lee makes without supporting them, which only makes us wonder if his primary source for the article was other media outlets, or if any investigative reporting occurred at all.

…the new legislation dramatically expands the government’s ability to wiretap without meaningful judicial oversight…

What does Lee define as a “dramatic expansion” (i.e. what specifically can the government do now that they couldn’t before)?

…the feds can drag their feet on getting authorization almost indefinitely.

Indefinitely?” Almost indefinitely? Here we thought a delay in authorization was only in emergency circumstances as Lee later proposes, just before pointing out that what he really means is “120 days”. Fortunately, we now have a numerical definition of “indefinitely”.

It also gives the feds unprecedented new latitude in selecting eavesdropping targets, latitude that could be used to collect information on non-terrorist-related activities like P2P copyright infringement and online gambling.

What does Lee consider “unprecedented new latitude”? Has there been an instance of the government pursuing a copyright infringement or online gambling case based on a FISA warrant? What source does Lee have to propose that this has happened, or even will happen?

[The] FISA sets a lower bar for approving surveillance than the process for obtaining ordinary criminal warrants.

That may be what “Civil libertarians” claim, but what is the support for that claim? Again, how do the processes between criminal warrants differ from FISA warrants? Is there a single reporter out there who dares find out and actually report it to the people?

…the government may discard information obtained about Americans as part of the required “minimization” procedures, but the government would retain significant latitude to decide which information it retains.

Here we go with the latitude bit again. If Lee isn’t clear on what the government means in regards to their “minimization” methodology, then how can he be sure that it doesn’t prevent the government from retaining non-applicable information on American persons?

Finally, the notion that the government could execute a “dragnet surveillance” on all international communications in a major city more easily than it could the communications of a single person in said city is nothing more than outright fear-mongering. As is Lee’s inference that coordination between foreign intelligence gathering organizations and law enforcement organizations will result in the FBI using NSA resources to obtain evidence of internet gambling, copyright infringements et al. Perhaps Lee should read up on the FBI’s mission and priorities and recognize that despite being a law enforcement organization, it’s top two goals are intelligence-related, making coordination with its intelligence partners a sensical move. Why Lee, and his counterparts in the media, like to draw random conclusions about inter-agency coordination is a question to ask them directly, though it’s certainly odd that they choose to assume the worst.

We don’t mean to pick on Lee alone, as we understand that he may have real concern over the direction of FISA law, but his recent article is like so many others in the media that it comes across as little more than pandering to an audience already biased against government actions. Yet the media as a whole doesn’t really inform its readers about the intricacies of the law, but merely generalizes and infers to paint a bleak picture about the big, dark, government machine, as though it is an instantiation of the Illuminati realized. Let’s step out of our Orwellian fascinations for a moment and remember that the media is supposed to be interested in the truth, not propaganda.

So to Ars Technica (a hive of villainy occupied by many of our friends), and to the many other publications out there, please begin reporting responsibly on these types of issues, because it’s more important that people understand them, than it is for people to fear them. If that understanding ultimately leads to fear, it’s better that people’s concern was borne from fact, than the reporter’s own bias.

Similar Posts:

• Redesigning internet services for Big Brother. – Electronic surveillance (generally referred to as “wiretaps”) are a standard tool in a law enforceme…
• Who to trust less: governments, or corporations? – When someone residing in Europe pointed out to us how distraught they were that online companies lik…
• Starbucks bomb illustrates media comedy. – It didn’t take long for a bomb found at a San Francisco Starbucks to make national headlines, nor di…

After Apple’s lawyers presumably spent many nights awake looking for looholes, they finally gave in and recognized that Apple needs to sell an unlocked version of the iPhone in France, because in Frenchland, carrier exclusivity is a no-no. Apparently, Apple’s lawyers did not find the same to be true in Germany, where Deutsche Telekom (i.e. T-Mobile) was awarded the iPhone exclusivity contract. Now, rival carrier Vodaphone has taken T-Mobile to court, receiving a temporary injunction to prevent sales of the iPhone.

Naturally, T-Mobile is appealing, but I’m keen on the drama coming out of the carrier exclusivity decision Apple has made, because they only people it’s helping are those with the big wallets at Apple and the respective exclusivity carriers. Consumers and rival carriers, meanwhile, don’t get to base their decisions on what really matters: who has the best rate and feature plans”.

Similar Posts:

• What if Apple’s deal with AT&T is a sham? – When news first hit that Apple was making the iPhone a device to be exclusively used on AT&T’s shabb…
• Getting an iPhone 3G sans contract: the costs. – In what should be illegal, AT&T is charging $700 for a 16GB iPhone that’s not contracted to them…
• Non-AT&T iPhone not likely until a 4G roll-out. – A lot of people dislike AT&T. Granted, that number pales in comparison to the number of people who _…

Rating the Girls at hotornot.com

Though this article was compiled by WyldKard, thanks go to all those helping to create this ratings guide, including Wayne “The Dirty Frenchman” Pozzar, The American Hero, Jim “MoneyBags” Hawley, and our dear friend Al Cohol.

Introduction

Whoever came up with the idea of amihotornot.com should be awarded a frikken medal. There are few web pages out there that keep me entertained long enough to come back, and there are even fewer that I enjoy browsing with a group of friends. I mean, web-browsing is usually considered a solo-adventure, but amihotornot.com changed that.

Though a gorgeous site, giving us pictures of gorgeous women to drool over, and non-gorgeous women to flame and rate low, likely driving them to commit suicide in the night when they realize that they were right about no one loving them, the ratings system of the site has some definite problems, not the least of which is the fairly random ratings some surfers choose to endulge in. I mean, standards are good, people, and it is with this thought in mind that I partook in a seminar program to bring about the Ratings Consortium, which has since taken me on as a member. Actually, I helped form the damn thing, so they had to make me a member.

Okay, okay, I made up the Ratings Consortium. But if it did exist (which it ought to), it would publish these findings, which are as important as remembering not to wear boxers before a heavy workout. Yea, that important.

Now, please remember that though there may not be a Ratings Consortium, the information contained within this guide has been field-tested regardless, by a number of twenty-something males. In addition, though some of the information below might appear strange, it all serves a very good purpose. If, at any point, you question why we included something like “line drawing” in the minus section below, it’s because we’ve actually come across someone on amihotornot.com that posted a frikken line drawing of themselves.

Could this syetm be altered to rate the men of amihotornot.com? Most surely, but since I’m wholly uninterested in such, I will opt not to write that kind of an article, but rather wait to let one of our other staff writers to take on the project. *ahem*Calvin*ahem*. Well, in this most accurate of systems, the base score for starting any rating is 5. So before you instinctively move your cursor to one, or ten, stop what you’re doing. Yea, that’s right, sucka. Hover that cursor near five, and get ready to follow the guidelines.

The Creed

Before going on, you must recite The Creed. It goes as follows:

No face, no score.
No head, no score.
No skin, no score.

What does this mean, exactly? It’s quite simple, really. If the picture in question does not show the face of the woman, immediately rate the picture as low as possible and move on. This is also true if you can’t see the head of the woman at all, or if there is not enough skin shown. The qualifier “enough” is somewhat subjective, though we take it as meaning “an average amount of”. For instance, if the amount of skin shown is appropriate for a typical day out, and the woman is not covered in pounds of clothing (winter jackets, for instance), then the picture passed The Creed, which serves as stage one of our quick filtering method.

The Kosher Test

Named after Wayne “Kosher” Pozzar, a misplaced Frenchman from NY, this second stage of our filtration method consists of assigning more automatic zeroes for those unworthy of scores. While we could have easily included these criteria in The Creed, we decided to separate them for no particular reason. In fact, it makes as much sense as the French, which is, appropriately, why this phase was named after a toad. Er, a frog.

Automatic zeroes are assigned for the following:

Professional Model – The whole purpose of amihotornot.com is to rate your goon friends and other “average” people. To include professional models is simply unfair, and we take great pleasure in shouting “Not-See!” at the top of our lungs when such a picture comes up. Somewhere inside our drunken heads, we imagine the model can hear us, and we take pleasure in that.

Breasts Bigger Than Your Head – Boobies that big are not cool, man. Granted, some of you sickos may like 100lb hooters, but this guide isn’t for freaks like you. Your head size is the limit.

One Breast – Even worse than two ridiculously huge b00bies is the lack of a whole breast. Granted, most women have one breast larger than the other, but missing one entirely doesn’t count for anything.

Too Stupid to Post the Picture – C’mon, ladies. We know you secretly control the World Wide Web, and that your Internet presence is growing at a much faster rate than male-Internet use. As such, there’s no excuse for not being able to post your picture properly. Broken URL’s, “hosted-on” messages, etc, are unacceptable, and a low score is what you get as a result.

Baby Present – Sure, babies are cute, but not the type of “cute” we’re looking for when we surf amihototnot.com. In fact, the presence of any child, toddler, fetus, or whatever in your picture disqualifies you from a proper rating.

“He’s a Man, Baby!” – If you’re a guy, and post your picture in the female’s section of amihotornot.com, you should be shot.

Milli Vanilli – If you look like the infamous pop duo, you also deserve to be shot.

Statues – Stone figures, real dolls, mannequins, or anything else of the sort gets you a low score. Yes, even if they’re just in the background.

Anything That Makes You Exclaim, “AHHH!!!” – ’nuff said.

The Plusses

And here we are with the plus modifiers. Indeed, if you’ve survived The Creed and the Kosher Test, it’s time to up the value of your picture. The following table should be your guide:

Beer	+1
Bikini	+1
Cowboy Hat	+1
Drunk	+1
Latino	+1
Liquor	+1
Nice Car	+1
Nose Ring	+1
Pajama Pants	+1
Red Head	+1
Showing Midriff	+1
Asian	+2
"Bangable"	+2
Belly Ring	+2
Cheerleader Outfit	+2
D.S.L.	+2
Drawn-on Bikini	+2
"Gettin’ Into It"	+2
Guinness	+2
In Bed	+2
In the Gym	+2
Incidental Lengerie	+2
Leather/Latex	+2
Lesbian	+2
Tongue Ring	+2
Wine	+2
Dressed like a Devil	+3
Dressed like an Angel	+3
Nippage	+3
Smokin’ a Joint	+3
Gettin’ 40′s poured on ‘em	+6
Phagina	+10

The Minuses

What, did you think we’d let you add points and not take any back? Of course not. Again, we’ve put together a table to guide you:

80′s Haircut	-1
Animal Bigger than Person	-1
Baggy Clothes	-1
Bigass Picture	-1
Bleached Blond	-1
Copious Pink	-1
Crooked Nose	-1
Fake Breasts	-1
Goth	-1
Junk in the Trunk (large ass)	-1
No Ass	-1
Not "Into It"	-1
Pig Snout	-1
Sagging Breasts	-1
Scraggly Hair	-1
Shitty Car	-1
Under 70 Pounds	-1
Wreathe on Head	-1
Blurry Picture	-2
Braces	-2
Deer Caught in Headlights	-2
Flat Head	-2
Fuzzy Pictures	-2
Guy Touching	-2
Internet Connection Sucks	-2
Lip Ring	-2
Looks "Used"	-2
No Body	-2
No Breasts	-2
Over 40	-2
Picture is too Fucking Small	-2
Racoon Eyes	-2
Stupid	-2
Text in Picture	-2
Truck Face	-2
Under 16	-2
Wearing a Wig	-2
"What the fuck is that shit in the background?"	-2
Nice job using your DL pic, ya fuckin’ idiot!	-3
"Snaggletooth"	-3
URL in Picture	-3
Retahded-lookin’	-4
Showin’ off More Than You Have To	-4
Line Drawing	-5
Mustache	-5

The Weight Scale

Those magazines are only half right – guys don’t like super skinny chicks, and they certainly don’t like fat chicks. Well, guys in ancient Greece did, but we’re not them.

Skinny	-1
Slim	+1
Full	0
Chubby	-1
Fat	-2
Dear God!	-5

The Breast Scale

All Guys like breasts. They may not care about them entirely, but they certainly don’t mind them being there, within reason. It’s for this reason that the Breast Scale was compiled, and though it adds a level of complexity that some guys don’t want to deal with out of laziness, more accurate results can be found by incorporating this scale into your daily amihotornot.com rating routine.

	Board	A	B	C	D	DD	Dragging
Skinny	0	+1	+2	NA	NA	NA	-4
Slim	-1	0	+1	+2	+2	-1	-3
Full	-2	-1	0	+1	+2	-1	-2
Chubby	-2	-2	-1	0	+1	+2	-2
Fat	-3	-2	-2	-1	+1	+1	-1
Dear God!	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA

Done?

Almost, but not quite. Before you can click the final number rating, we’re giving you the option of raising or lowering the final rating by one point, but only by one point. This accounts for some cultural diversity – for instance, if you lived in ancient Greece, you may wan to rate that fat woman you’re eying a point higher, or if you live in France and you like hairy armpits, feel free to add a point. We’re all about compromising here, fellas.

Finally, if you have any suggestions for future revisions of this guide, send them our way.

Similar Posts:

• Chauvanism, meet amihotornot.com. – If you thought the International Dibs Rulebook was harsh, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Putting a grou…
• Class guide update. – http://mendax.org/?p=25 Along with the mini-guides for two classes posted yesterday, I’ve also updat…
• Why bigger boobies are awesome. – In truth, there are a number of reasons, but I refer here to the fact that larger breasts save lives…

There must still be a “we’re better than you”-bug among European nations, despite efforts to unite Europe’s monetary system under the EU. How many times does Europe-major make a decision that leaves one or two countries staggering behind not really wanting to keep up?

In a recent case, a pan-European game ratings system is going into effect, though Germany has decided not to participate, making it not quite pan-European. While Germany believes in the idea, they’re still content with their own homebrew system for rating games, which suspiciously flags a number of best-sellers and refuses to give them shelf space, or advertisment rights. Such is the case with games like Return to Castle Wolfenstein and Command and Conquer: Generals. Notorious for “banning” games with certain themes, Germany seems too concerned over digital entertainment genres, especially considering their otherwise progressive nature when it comes to European society.

I don’t really expect Germany’s ratings system to last too long, however. I gather, instead, that it’s simply a matter of time before they get around to shifting the old system out of law, and incorporating the new.

Similar Posts:

• Web-hosting responsible for private content? – Photshopped nude photos of Stefi Graf may herald the death of private web fora and chat rooms if [a …
• Who to trust less: governments, or corporations? – When someone residing in Europe pointed out to us how distraught they were that online companies lik…
• Two names, one sentence, bad mojo. – I don’t know how one can say that public relations are hampered by this kind of event, but that’s th…