Wi-Fi Hotspot-Spotting T-Shirt Will Not Get You Dates
As most of my friends know, I’m a total geek with it comes to technology wearables but sometimes even I, the T-shirt King just has to say no.
The new Wi-Fi detecting T-shirt from ThinkGeek may help you find a Wi-Fi hotspot, but I think Dr. Love would give it a serious thumbs down.
Black lights had their day, so did glow-in-the-dark sneakers but a T-shirt that begins to glow as you approach a Wi-Fi hotspot? Useful? Um. Maybe.
It should come with a meter that shows you how likely you are to get a date with anyone in eyesight of the T-shirt. The brighter the Wi-Fi signal on your shirt, the less likely you are to get a date.
If you think all those stares from the Starbucks barista are because you’re sexy, think again.
Walking around town, I suppose one could live with the giggles and snickers, depending on your level of self-consciousness.
But the negative effect would be amplified in any social situation, especially a bar or party where Wi-Fi signals might be leaking in and lighting up your chest.
Nothing says “I’m Hip” like a T-shirt that can signal certain types of radiation nearby.
ThinkGeek should probably recommend that this T-shirt not be worn at airports. You never know what kind of mood those TSA security guards will be in…
Oh and encase you were wondering, my preferred size is XXL 
You Can Change The World With Technology
Analysis of the RIAA’s victory over Jammie Thomas doesn’t have to be long.
Thomas got what was coming to her. She was obviously guilty… or was she?
From her blog/MySpace account:
I know this topic is debatable. It has been debated time and time again. I can honestly say I do NOT advocate theft. I will also say that I have NEVER used a P2P software to download or upload music. That was reason number one why I refused to settle with the music labels that were suing me in the first place. I did not do what they had accused me of and I was not going to pay them for someone else’s actions.
So what does the RIAA get now that Jammie Thomas got railroaded in my opinion?
$220,000 in actual (not punitive) damages for 24 shared files which is laughably out of touch with reality.
This victory is the RIAA’s money shot after years of lobbying, rent-seeking, bankrolling politicians and other legal and legislative maneuvering.
Nailing consumers for piracy is no longer untested law: it’s now backed by precedent.
The record industry is so obviously corrupt and immoral that most people either see thieving from it as a virtue, or are indifferent to its misfortunes.
Once an exemplar of venture capitalism’s driving spirit, the record industry is now nothing more than an economic and legal parasite.
Don’t believe me that the RIAA is in it for the money and not the justice?
Because after the verdict, RIAA attorney Richard Gabriel told reporters outside the courthouse “this is what can happen if you don’t settle.”
Has Apple Jumped The Shark And Gone Rotten?
What should have been another glorious moment in the sun for Apple is quickly turning into a blemish that won’t go away.
Rather than bask in the victory of the iPhone, Apple appears to have undermined itself by bricking modified iPhones.
Is this the beginning of the end?
It happens to every great civilization. A long period of slow growth, followed by an intense period of innovation, then a plateau, and eventually a long road down.
It happened to Rome. And if it can happen to Arthur Fonzarelli, it can happen to Apple.
As many bloggers have pointed out, this bricked iPhone debate has stirred people to their cores. Lots of strong feelings abound. Rather than continue the debate itself here, I have one issue in mind.
Will this bricking debacle permanently besmirch Apple’s name? Is this the first bruise on the surface that will eventually soften the entire apple and cause it to rot?
Will Apple continue to hide behind its user terms of agreement, or eventually admit it might have made a mistake here?
To borrow a phrase from popular television, has Apple jumped the shark? Or will it stick to its guns, ride out the wave of negativity and hope that Pinky still wants to give it a hug and kiss after it lands?
I am undecided. We’ll have to see if the shark ignores what’s going on over its head, or chooses to jump out of the water and take a a bite.
Disney Mobile Virtual Network Operator Dying?
Is The Walt Disney Co. about to kill its MVNO play?
Surely Mickey and the crew will not meet the same fate as the ESPN MVNO and Amp’d Mobile, right?
Nothing is definite yet, but according to Dan Frommer at the Alley Insider, Disney CFO Thomas Stagg is far from impressed with the MVNO’s performance:
Disney CFO Thomas Staggs didn’t quite write the Disney Mobile “virtual” wireless carrier obit today, but his message was clear: it’s sucking wind. At the Merrill conference in Marina del Rey, Staggs said Disney has seen “some challenges” distributing its family-oriented MVNO, and the company is “in the process of evaluating where we sit.” Staggs said the service has received “strong response” from parents, but that the MVNO business needs scale to be successful (which it lacks). He said it would be too early to project the MVNO’s losses in 2008: the company will analyze the MVNO during its budget process and “decide just what our plan is going forward.”
That hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement of the Disney MVNO model.
I have to admit that for years I thought the MVNO model made perfect sense.
It looked to me a lot like the long distance re-seller model of the 1980s and in the early 2000s, Virgin seemed to show that MVNOs could post solid growth numbers.
Since then, however, few MVNOs have been successful. OK, that’s putting it mildly. Most MVNOs have burned out like a dot-com in the first quarter of 2001.
ESPN, also a part of the Disney empire, shuttered its MVNO and even Helio, Sky Dayton’s much-hyped play in this sector, recently trimmed jobs.
In fact, even Virgin Mobile’s subscriber numbers may not be as strong as the wireless industry assumed.
If Virgin Mobile isn’t doing that well, then what hope do these other MVNOs have?
What do you think? Is the MVNO business model dead?
Do online social networks lead to more real friendships?
According to Dr. Will Reader and a team of researchers at Sheffield Hallam University, most people who use social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace only have, on average, five really close friends.
Ironically enough, that’s the same number most people have offline too.
While the average person on a social networking site can rack up 150 friends, most still only have five or so really close friends. Here is a look at the study’s findings:
Despite this extraordinary flux of making and breaking friendships, the actual number of close friends “is approximately the same as in the face to face world,” said Dr Reader.
There are “good evolutionary reasons” why this should be. Making friendships means investing time, even money, in another person. To ensure that investment is worthwhile, face to face contact is invaluable, he said. But “it is very easy to be deceptive on the internet.”
Of all the sites, the majority - 90 per cent - of close friends have been met face to face. “Face to face contact is a requirement for intimate friendships.”
Now the article doesn’t define exactly what a “close” friend is, so this could be debatable. Based on my personal experience, however, it seems accurate.
And what about that 10 percent of friends who only know one another online?
As for the ten per cent of people who felt close friends with someone that they have never met in real life. “It could be that these people are friends of friends. If someone is a friend of someone who is close to you, that is a good indicator that that person is a decent individual.”
Again, I have to confirm that these findings mesh with my own personal experience.
The few close friendships that I maintain online were initially prompted by a face-to-face meeting, or were very quickly cemented by one.
I have made a few friends strictly online, and in most cases, they were people who knew existing friends of mine.
How does this study apply to your own online experiences? Have you made many close friends with people you’ve only met online? Do you have more than five close online friends?
My Thoughts On An Interesting Day Job
Most of my Geek With Laptop readers and visitors have what I consider to be a “normal” day (or night) job to put beans on the table and of course, what some consider “normal” will vary from person to person.
Some of my readers don’t even have jobs, they might be students or living off state unemployment but lets leave that subject matter for another discussion down the road.
Disclaimer: To protect the people, places and things involved in what I’m about to quote on my blog, I won’t say where this job description came from or who it’s directly about but this is almost a word for word quote:
I am self employed as a Dominatrix.
Basically that means I dominate submissive men for a living. Things like feminize, beating and humiliating them is normal. As an added bonus, I do it while wearing a strapon.
It pays really well. I make well over $200.00 per hour. I perform live sessions and I also do telephone and webcam sessions.
You’re either in shock, have passed out, laughing your butt off, puzzled or saying “hey, why are you posting my job description”.
When I read this job description, I had all but two of the above reactions:
- I didn’t pass out
- it’s not my job description
For the record, I’m a very open minded person and don’t judge people for their choices of work or play, just don’t force your ways on me. Let me make my own decisions.
So here’s the question of the day, what would you do if you heard that someone you knew, was a friend of, a co worker, etc. had being a dominatrix as a job description?
Would you run, hide or yell out “beat me, whip me, make me write back checks!”?
Your thoughts are requested. Thanks in advance.