Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for this one. How can you not love the idea of starting your weekend with three minutes of chimps on ice? I’m surprised my former employer Feld Entertainment didn’t produce and tour it!
"Finish each day and be done with it. You have done what you could. Some blunders and absurdities no doubt crept in; forget them as soon as you can. Tomorrow is a new day; begin it well and serenely and with too high a spirit to be encumbered with your old nonsense."
—Ralph Waldo Emerson
Everything is now officially available on demand over the Internet.
Sex? Try teledildonics … or CraigsList … or your USB port … or Google (with safe search off).
Rock ‘n’ Roll? Try LimeWire … or eMule … or BitTorrent … or iTunes.
Ahhhh, but drugs. That’s always been tough online. You can probably order all kinds of drugs and hope you don’t get ripped off while you wait for delivery, but what about reaching another level of consciousness right here, right now?
That’s where binaural beats come in. Here’s a good article about them, here’s the Wikipedia entry on them and here’s a blog post about them that I found when I was exploring what the entertaining PhillyWillDo blog called “the stupidest article in the history of the Internet” which happens to be this one from August 9 by Kim Komando who seems to come off like this month’s Dr. Frederic Wertham.
Izzat enough links in one post for ya? They’re all your brain and body need … right, Ian?
This story from the Business and Media Institute is featured at the top of The Drudge Report this morning. In it, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell says that “the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle.”
But what does that really mean? That legislation about net neutrality could be slipped into a bill about the Fairness Doctrine, or vice versa? This sort of legislative piggybacking happens all the time.
In the article, McDowell says, “the result might end with the government regulating content on the Web” and adds this question: “Will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?”
First: The net neutrality debate isn’t about content in the sense the Fairness Doctrine is about content; it’s more about how the bits and bytes of information travel through the Internet’s series of tubes.
Second: “Opposing views?” On blogs? Has McDowell ever been to a blog? Hey, Commissioner: Blogs allow readers to comment. In case you haven’t noticed, the public makes ample use of this function to express all sorts of opposing views.
Finally: Consider the notion of the government attempting to regulate free speech online. Yeah, that’ll work. YouTube can’t even regulate copyrighted videos, and that’s just one Web site out of … well, there’s a reason Google was named after the googolplex .
I can’t help but think that McDowell is rattling his sabre to some other purpose … whatever that might be. Either that, or he has zero fundamental understanding of the Internet.
Pretty much all the time, according to eMarketer — which doesn’t provide much guidance if you’re asking yourself, "When’s the best time of day for me to send that newsletter or special offer?"
