The XBox 360 3.0 Legal Experience

This is a short video of the very fun time I had playing the new game that comes with every XBox 360 upgrade, “Legal Agreement”.

Its a pretty basic down-scroller, build old-school text-only style.   I liked a lot of games like Zork and Hithchikers Guide to the Galaxy back in the day, but I figured with the upgrade you would get some cool new stuff.

Anyway, here’s a video of the gameplay.

YouTube Insight = Very Cool

I was just playing with some of my youtube stuff, and I found the link to youtube “Insight” traffic tracking software.  It’s pretty neat.

As of right now…on a scale of 1 to 100, I have the .22 most popular channel.  Yes, that is a leading decimal.  So, uh, it’s actually on a scale of 0 to 100.  My guess would be that the majority of channels are under 1 on the scale. (see: The Long Tail for why that is:::……)

And that’s at about 1,000 views/day.

I’ll have to work on that one…

If you have some videos up there, check it out.  It’s very web 2.0, all slidy and intuitive.  Good work.

Douchebag Jay Louis Sued by Both Hot Chicks and Douchebags

The guy, Jay Louis, who made the site (and the book) “Hot Chicks with Douchebags” has now been sued by both the Hot Chicks and the Douchebags.

Yvette Gorzelany, Joanna Obiedzinski, and Paulina Pakos (the Hot Chicks) went out to a club called Bliss in Jersey and had their photos taken with guys (the Douchebags). The pics ended up on the website. One of the defendants, Jay Lewis, created the website and wrote a book that includes photos of the women.

According to the suit, since publication of the book the girls have had to undergo medical treatment and psychological therapy.

One woman says she applied to be a Maitre’ d at a country club but didn’t get the job because someone saw her in the book. And we want to know why the presumed dude was looking at it in the first place.

[full post]

———————–

NOVEMBER 18–Claiming that he has been unfairly branded a “douchebag” in the book “Hot Chicks with Douchebags,” a Las Vegas man has filed a libel lawsuit against the volume’s author and publisher. Michael Minelli, a 27-year-old club promoter, claims that the inclusion of his photograph in the book has subjected him to “hatred, contempt, and humiliation” and has resulted in “friends, acquaintances, coworkers, employees, and strangers alike” calling him a “douchebag.” As seen below, Minelli’s photo appears on page 202 of author Jay Louis’s book, which was published in July by Simon & Schuster. In the book, Louis noted that Minelli’s “popped-collar, spikey-haired presence was so far beyond regular douche, so far beyond uberdouche, he could spontaneously create a new element on the periodic tables–Douche Nine.” At the time he was photographed by Louis, Minelli was working the door at the popular “Rehab” party at the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino.

[full filing]

And here I’m going to do a little discovery for a the plaintiffs in this case, as I think the site and the author are probably the biggest douchebags in this conversation.  I know it’s fun to make fun of people, but at some point you have to step back and think about it.

Nor am I a particular fan of douchebags. I live in Uptown, Dallas, and we’ve got our fair share.  I tend to laugh at them, to their face.  Of course, I probably have an advantage over Jay Louis in the fact that my “tough guy” persona extends beyond the Net, but I digress.

To understand the level of Louis’ douchebaggery, the simple analogy that I came up with was doing a website (and later a book) called “Nosepickers: Anonymous.”  What I would do is skulk around and take pictures of people picking their noses and then get a pic of them acting normally.  I would then reverse the order I presented the pictures in, and have a set-up and a punchline.   I would make lots of referenses to “boogers” and “sliders” and “stickers” and “flingers”.  There would be a science chapter on the nasal cavity.  The last chapter would be called “The Eaters.”

After I was finally finished, I could then publicly humiliate a ton of people, get a ton of laughs, and make a ton of money.

Sure, I’d be a total asshole, but I’d be successful and rich.  In other words, a typical douchebag.

I haven’t gone that route, however, and I won’t.  One reason being that doing such thing is *really* skirting a legal fine line, and when you have public comments like the ones I’m about to share….doing a book of a blog can be a bad idea.  Here’s an interview with Jay Louis, the author.  Strangely, I couldn’t find a good photo of Jay to tag for this post.  I wonder if he’s averse to having his picture all over the internet with photoshopped dildo goodness..hmm?

The book which is titled, HOT CHICKS WITH DOUCHEBAGS: Deconstructing the Unholy Wrongness of Hottie/Douchey Coupling and How to Recover from the Douchebag Plague will hit shelves in Spring 2008. The Los Angeles resident took time out from ‘bag hunting to catch up with LAist.

What is a douchebag?
Douchebaggery, in its purest state, is about absurdly ridiculous male performance in the interests of impressing a female. It is about men willing to look as ridiculous as possible in the hopes that this “confidence” will impress and confuse the female enough for them to get some. But even if it works, that doesn’t mean we can’t mock them.

Has a guy ever found his photo and contacted you? Does it happen often? If so, what are the reactions like?
When the site was first starting out I’d get lots of hate-mail, but now most people seem to enjoy it, and while the ‘bags I make fun of certainly aren’t happy about it, they seem to roll with it, take their lumps and move on. If I get a request from either person in the pic to take it down, I do. That’s my policy.

[full interview]

And here we have the problem.  The guy knows he’s being a dick, and has acted to be less dick-like in the past. 

When you publish a book of a bunch of pictures that you didn’t get releases to publish and then someone asks you to “take it down,” the only way to follow “your policy” is to get the book off the shelves and re-print it.

After their lawyers find your statements, my guess is that this is exactly what is going to happen.  Well, the off the shelves part, not the re-printing.

John Ziegler Interview with Nate Silver

This is a follow-up to the post here were I tear apart this guy’s allegedly “scientific” data.  This is the person behind the website “HowObamaGotElected” and I think he’s making a movie about how we elected a Muslim terrorist or something.

Anyway, Nate Silver, who had gained a great deal of polling credibility during the campaign at 538.com, got a call from the guy after Nate slammed his poll on the site.

This led to a transcript of the interview being posted here, and below I’ll pull some of the funnier exchanges.  Ziegler is a nut, but I am kinda unhappy with Nate for not busting Ziegler on his complete lack of mathematical ability (as I so hilariously noted here).

BTW, the interview also gets directly to the point I raised in my previous post…the video and movie that he’s making are at polar opposites to the poll he commissioned.

That would be because….

NS: In the Youtube video, how were the Obama supporters identified for the Youtube video?
JZ: I had nothing to do with it. I had a person who was working with me who happens to be a black female since you seem to think I’m a racist who was the one that chose all of the respondents based on conversations we’d had prior, people who were well-spoken, thought they were informed, willing to come on camera and [who] voted for Barack Obama.

NS: What was the location of the polling place where the interviews were conducted?
JZ: They were both in Los Angeles.

NS: Okay, that’s what I kind of guessed. How many Obama supporters did you speak with in total?
JZ: All twelve we spoke with are in the video.

NS: Was there any significance to the fact that in the YouTube video, seven of the twelve Obama supporters were black?
JZ: [Laughs]. The reason why we had more black supporters – that might surprise some of the people that we spoke to — if we go by your apparent ability to determine race — the first location happened to be in a black section of town and we were able to get our interviews faster there because of the way that was set up, because of the logistics.

Yup, the guy headed straight south central L.A. to find your typical American voter.   Super-scientific, he is.

NS: Do you think that certain types of voters are less well informed?
JZ: I think anyone that looks rationally at these poll results would have to conclude that Obama voters are incredibly poorly informed about major issues that occurred during the campaign — my guess is because McCain voters got their information from different types of media than Obama voters did.

NS: What types of media would you consider credible?
JZ: I think you need a variety of sources, but I do not accept the notion that if it’s not in the New York Times it’s not true and if it is in the New York Times it is. Just because Sean Hannity says something doesn’t mean it’s not true.

As someone who has looked rationally at these polls results, and saw that when an actual answer was given (Not Sure wasn’t a candidate in *this election*) the plurality of those polled were right every time, and that’s even given the biased questions.

The really sad part about it is that Ziegler thought these were “major issues”.  I’m sorry, but a slip of the tongue (’57 states’) is a not a major issue, unless you slip it somewhere very interesting.

It’s also evident now where he gets most of his news.  Hannity was kind enough to have him on the show, having seen a fellow traveler.  The formulation of Hannity’s defense that Ziegler uses, “He doesn’t lie ALL the time” should be telling to anyone who has tried to defend a friend the same way.

Ziegler started off the video by quizzing Southern Californians about members of the House of Representatives for other districts and other states, ranging as far away as Massachusetts.  Massachusetts has ten Reps.  Very few people know who represent themselves in Congress, much less which of the 535 members represent people in other states.  If you learned the name of a Representative in Congress every other day, you would never learn them all, as they get must get re-elected very two years (435 * 2 = 870, 365 * 2 =730).

Senators are a bit easier, but even those are tough to follow.

When asked himself about *Senators* in other states, Ziegler answers like a real man.

NS: Would you consider yourself well-informed
JZ: I’d consider myself extremely well-informed.

NS: Who are the two senators from South Dakota
JZ: Thune and, uh, Johnson.

NS: Very good. South Carolina?
JZ: Go fuck yourself. I’m done with this interview if you’re going to ask me stupid questions like that. Obviously I know who Lindsay Graham is.

NS: Well, since you’re running a website calling people misinformed, I’d like to see if — there are certain things you’ve said that I would consider misinformed.
JZ: Misinformed? You’re a piece of work! You are never going to have the guts to post a representative transcript on your website! I thought you actually ran a legitimate website!

NS: Thank you, have a good day.
JZ: Go fuck yourself.

And that, my friends, is the man (and I use the term loosely) who created “HowObamaGotElected.”

Jump on his bandwagon at your own risk.  He’s the one driving.

UPDATE: It should be noted that this whole kurfluffle started with Ziegler and Silver (representing the jewish divide in America) around Silver’s delcaration that this was a ‘push poll’.   Ziegler took offense, as he so easily does, and asked Nate for the interview.  Nate obliged.

There is a simple reason why Nate incorrectly called it a “push poll” and Ziegler is right that it isn’t one.  From the wiki….

A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted, and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll. 

 The reason why Nate called this a “push poll” was because the questions appeared to him to be “telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll.”   I agree with Nate that they appear this way.  Normally poll questions are supposed to be unbiased, and I don’t see how anyone could argue these are fair questions.  Heck, Ziegler admits himself that at least one is a trick question.  I think people realized this, and picked the trick question answer “None” more often than they would have normally.

You see, all us Humans have built-in bullshit detectors.  We got them from our ancestors who used them to survive and copulate furiously.  When we think/feel someone is lying to us, or trying to mislead us, we pull back.  You can see that in the numbers.

The reason this isn’t  a push poll are also evident in the definition. Mainly because a “push poll is a political campaign technique” and the campaign is over, because “large numbers of respondents” were not contacted (you want to reach 10s if not 100s of thousands of people with a push poll, it’s a form of advertising, not polling), and because a great deal of effort has gone into “collect[ing] and analyze response data.”

So the question of the push poll goes to Ziegler over Silver.  Congrats John, you won the battle and lost the war.

How very Pyrrhic of you.

UPDATE: Fixed the guy’s first name in title and URL.  Typos are easy.