This is why I love the internet.

I write my blog for fun. I have ads on it, but ultimately they don't pay for anything. They're just there because I like seeing the deranged crap Google thinks is related to the kind of topics I write about.

Anyway, out of curiosity, I set up a Google Analytics report for my blog. I forgot to check it for awhile, then went back to see what goin' on all up ins.

As it turns out, this. This is what was going on.

Words cannot express my elation at having created something that no less than four (!) people have found by typing the worlds "vulva parade" into a search engine. And that "adorable kittens" and "1930s farm workers" were apparently just as relevant.
Though... I'm kind of wondering if the "adorable kittens" and "weird genetically modified organisms" queries might be related. Not sure how I feel about that.

P.S. Upon further inspection, it appears that the search terms that kept people on my page the longest were for "pagan duvet cover." I have no blog entries on the religious affiliations of duvet covers, but now I'm curious about finding out about mine (it's orange and covered in spiraly dots) (I'm guessing it's Buddhist).

If were to Occupy anything, it would be over this.

For those of you who haven't experienced the unending cavalcade of joy that is my Twitter feed, this has been today.

Companies: It is not good when I'm writing about you, I go to your website for info, and then STILL have to google "What is this" afterward

I know you all offer innovative cloud based networking and marketing solutions, but I need to know what that means in people language.

Seriously. If you don't stop referring to everything as a "solution" (IT IS NOT A SERVER SOLUTION IT IS A SERVER) I am going to cut you.

If I was to go Occupy something, it would be in order to force businesses to stop using meaningless fucking buzzwords for stupid things.

I have read four paragraphs of drivel, and still have absolutely no idea what this company actually does.

Do they code software? Do they own a data center? Are they IT consultants? IT IS A MYSTERY.

Dear Citrix- I know people who would be willing to give you money, if they could figure out what you do.

What is a "web application virtual delivery appliance," and why is it eight thousand dollars. You made that up. Shut up.

Okay, it appears that by "web application virtual delivery appliance," you mean "load balancing software." And I hate you.

This is a problem I encounter frequently. "Web application virtual delivery appliance" isn't even the worst of it, either. The thing is... I have no idea who this shit is written for. When it comes to other IT professionals, I would expect that they know enough to realize that at least three of those five words are stupid and pointless. When it comes to people who are not IT professionals, I would expect that they would find five out of those five words confusing and irritating.

"Solution" and "optimization" are two words that I've grown to hate with an unreasonable passion. Nothing is a thing anymore- it's a thing solution. You aren't on a computer, you're "utilizing a home computing platform and networking solution."

This only really seems to happen with the IT industry, too. Don't get me wrong- other industries have jargon that is every bit as bile-inducing, I just don't come across it with the alarming frequency that I do when I'm researching IT stuff. "Solution." "Optimization." "Synergistic."

The next time I have to write for one of these fuckers, I am going to develop a networking platform to optimize my boot for synergistic utilization with someone's ass. Solution.

YES. THIS.

All of the time.

How is PayPal like Ticketmaster?

Answer: They both suck, but customers don't have a viable option.

Sure, Dwolla and WePay are out there for disillusioned PayPal users, as is Google Checkout. The trouble is, large websites like Etsy don't use them. The freelancing sites I've used don't use them. As far as they're concerned, PayPal's the only game in town.

Chances are, you've heard about how PayPal is okay with you using their donate buttons to donate to sick cats, but is not cool with a toy drive for needy children, thereby screwing over all of the families that were depending on the Regretsy Secret Santa fund for Christmas. Oh, and how they don't mind triple-dipping into money intended for charity. I would go deeper into exactly what PayPal has done wrong in this situation, but The Green Geeks have it covered in a much more well-researched, coherent way already.

The thing that kills me the most is that, okay, PayPal wants to have stupid policies about their "donate" buttons. Fine. But they're taking exorbitant amounts of money from charitable donations (donations to a charitable cause, not a charity. It's a semantic difference, but a biggie here), despite insisting that the money be refunded. What's more, they aren't acting consistently with their own policies. On top of that, there has already been a class action suit against PayPal for this kind of ridiculous bullshit in the past. The absolute worst, worst part of this, to me, is the fact that it actually behooves PayPal to keep dicking April Winchell over. Every time they do, she has to find another way to get funds for the Secret Santa cause, and they get to keep a cut of that money, too. Which they will then insist she refund... minus the fees that they decided to keep, natch.

So, if you use a service that insists that you use PayPal, start writing, calling, and e-mailing. There are alternatives out there, customers just need to start insisting that big websites start using them.

Update: PayPal responds. Kind of. So... why are their policies so poorly-worded that their own employees can make these kind of mistakes?

Artsy Shindig

So, I'd heard of Polyvore, but never really gave it much thought before today... As it turns out, it's fantastic amounts of fun to play around on! I made a mock-up of an outfit I'm planning to wear to a party later this season. Granted, everything I put together on Polyvore is outlandishly expensive, but still...

 

Artsy Shindig by jeccavee featuring one sleeve shirts

Halston Heritage one sleeve shirt
 £138 - julesb.co.uk

True Religion slim jeans
$270 - stylebop.com

Steve Madden platform wedge
$100 - zappos.com

Salvatore ferragamo bag
$995 - couture.zappos.com

Lipsy metal jewelry
£8 - lipsy.co.uk

Marc Jacobs logo sunglasses
£105 - theoutnet.com

NARS Nail Polish
$17 - bloomingdales.com

emphasEYES™ aqua-gel eyeliner - tarte cosmetics
$18 - tartecosmetics.com

LipSurgence™ natural lip tint - peaceful

$24 - tartecosmetics.com

Also, I got my Tarte vanity! Going to play around with it for a bit, and then review it after I've had the chance to try it some more. 

Baby, Don't Be Like That.

Okay, so, I know that many of the ads I see around the web are dictated by the kind of sites I visit (trust me, there could be no other way that I'd be subjected to some of the advertisements I am if I hadn't had to research them for freelancing work). I've kind of become okay with this, even though all of these ads are for boring crap like backlinking services and SEO experts. Using the internet as much as I do (a lot), I've kind of developed a Pavlovian response to things like banner ads... By the time something has registered as an ad in my mind, I'm already done deciding to ignore it. 


That, however, may change. My very life may depend on it.


So, let me backtrack- I have a party to attend this weekend, which meant I needed things to wear to it. Now that I have a job that doesn't actually require pants, clothes shopping trips have been relatively few and far between. Since I wanted something cute and kind of unique, I decided to hit up ModCloth.com (I ended up scoring a really cute dress, some tights, and the very last pair of really awesome shoes, but I digress). ModCloth is really near me, in terms of shipping. Only about a state away. I placed my order on Sunday, and should be receiving it later today. Awesome.


What is less than awesome is the advertisement that just popped up for me.


"Come back and shop for gifts!" It said.


... What? 


Another popped up on another page, minutes later.

... WHAT.


I'm not sure how to feel. I'm not ready for this kind of commitment... I feel ModCloth's eyes on me. Checking my Facebook and my Twitter feed to see what other sites I'm following. Looking through my browser history to see where I've been. Threatening to delete its DNS entries if I don't come back. Burning its logo into my lawn with gasoline. 


I can hear the conversations in my mind. "No, ModCloth, I haven't been to Plasticland. No, Ruche and I are just friends, I swear. It's like I don't even know you anymore! Oh, come on. I didn't mean it... Baby, don't be like that..." 


ALL I WANTED WAS A DRESS.

Media Bias: So What?

"Media bias" is a really popular buzzword that you'll hear flung around any debate, social networking site, or forum that even thinks about mentioning something that may, once, have thought of possibly having to do with something political. 


Essentially, media bias refers to the idea that the mainstream media has a political leaning. It's the idea that reporters and news broadcasts may express a liberal viewpoint more often than a conservative one, or attempt to paint political figures from a specific party in a more positive light than their competition. People who cry media bias feel that this tendency ultimately influences the opinions of a news outlet's viewers or listeners, leading them to vote or act a certain way. Considering that news broadcasts are supposed to be factual and thus (relatively) impartial, media bias is a pretty nasty accusation to make, almost the journalistic equivalent of fraud.


There have been studies, surveys, and all kinds of other research conducted on allegedly biased news outlets, but the results aren't always consistent. Many feel that reporters are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans, and a 2004 study by the UCLA found that most media has a liberal slant. However, this is hardly conclusive- the study itself was based on several assumptions that were questionable and not well explained, and several bits of background information on the researchers (which could have led to skewed results) were omitted. For the sake of brevity, I won't go into detail here.


There's also the fact that the study's findings themselves were debatable- The ACLU, for one, is rooted in Constitutional law and thus does not lean right or left. Conservatives, however, generally feel that the ACLU is a liberal organization. The UCLA study found that the ACLU was, in fact, a conservative outlet, according to their methodology. 


Lastly, this is far from the only study to have been conducted (and subsequently heavily questioned) on media bias, and it seems like there are just as many studies supporting a conservative bias as a liberal one. Accusations about the "lamestream" media have been flying ever since the invention of news outlets. The idea that the media is biased is not new, and really not that interesting.


What is interesting is the question that most media bias studies don't seem to focus on, if they bother addressing it at all- even if it does exist, does media bias matter when you take the average citizen's access to information into account?


The problem with adherents to any ideology, whether it's liberal versus conservative, religioun versus atheism, or even just breastfeeding versus formula feeding, is another kind of bias entirely- confirmation bias. 


In 2008, the media was allegedly biased towards conservative political figures, but that didn't seem to affect presidential election results that year. So, how much of an impact does a left- or right-leaning media really have? There's evidence to suggest that it had an impact in the past, when mainstream news outlets were still held to an impartial standard, and the lines between what constituted editorials and what constituted actual journalism were less blurred... but with the number of news outlets available, increasingly widespread use of the internet, and relative ease of mistaking "entertainment" for "news," does it really make a difference now?


I'll give you an example- Bob is a person with ideas. He has very strong convictions when it comes to politics, morality, and religion. When he watches television, he sees broadcasts that contradict his deeply-held beliefs, and it makes him angry that the media appears to be misrepresenting what he knows to be the truth. He also sees broadcasts that don't, but these are common sense and don't cause a visceral reaction in him. As a result, he notices the things that don't agree with him more often than he notices those that do.
When Bob gets tired of continually being barraged (he feels) by lies perpetuated by the mainstream media, he stops watching those programs, and reading those newspapers. He may switch to a different publication, or find an alternative news outlet that will give him the "real" news. If he is unable to find one, that doesn't matter- he will either write his own 'zine or start his own podcast to "get the truth out there," or he will begin getting his information from friends and associates that he trusts. People whose opinions he shares. 
This isn't a perfect example, of course- Bob is only one (hypothetical) person, and one person does not a focus group make. He's just a demonstration of how confirmation bias can influence our behavior, even down to what information we choose to notice and remember. If you want a different example, just watch an episode or two of Crossing Over. 
The UCLA study and others like it attempt to boil media bias down into a numerical formula... but that inevitably relies on starting off with some assumptions that make them no more accurate than Bob's opinion is when it comes to calculating an actual, quantifiable bias in the media.


So, it's not outside of the realm of possibility that attempting to quantify media bias is inherently flawed. That's okay though, because that's not really what we're looking at in this situation. What's important here is whether or not modern media bias has an impact... and, if so, to what extent.
In this case, we can look at the after effects- Bob doesn't want to "drink the Kool-Aid." He will seek out people who, in Bob's mind, are the only ones telling the real truth. As a result of his confirmation bias, Bob will be given no compelling reason to change his opinions. So how likely is it that his voting preferences are going to be influenced by the mainstream media either way?


I didn't give Bob an actual political affiliation because that part doesn't matter. Looking for people and news outlets that share your ideology isn't a liberal or conservative thing, it's a human nature thing. 
It doesn't really matter whether you're looking for evidence that aliens exist, that vaccines are dangerous, that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy orchestrated by the government, that liberals are dirty socialists hippies who hate America, or that conservatives are knuckle-dragging woman haters who want us to go back to the age of McCarthyism. You will find websites, podcasts, and indie radio stations that agree with your point of view, and all it takes is a couple of mouseclicks. 


With the ability to find this much information with ten seconds of Googling, is a political bias in the mainstream media a more powerful force than humanity's own confirmation bias? 
What's your opinion? 


(Note: Comments have been moderated ever since the Chinese Spambot Incident. I don't delete comments based on content... as long as they aren't advertisements for porn, knockoff wedding dresses, pyramid schemes, CHE@P HERB@L V1@GR@, or what have you.)

Hollywood, you're killin' me here.

I have come to terms with the fact that "gritty reboot" is pretty much all that Hollywood is really capable of interested in pumping out lately. I hope it's my imagination, but it seems like a steadily increasing number of movies aren't actually original stories, just a different (darker, edgier) take on existing ones.


Take the new version of The Three Musketeers, for one. Now... I'm not necessarily of the opinion that the version that came out when I was a kid (1993) was the Definitive Three Musketeers, but I don't really think that the story was necessarily ripe for a gritty reboot. Besides... considering the subject matter, how much darker can you really make it?

Oh. I guess that is darker. 
It also has a lot more Matrix, steampunk, and explosions than I remember. 
Huh.


The same can be said for Snow White and The Huntsman, though I think that has more to do with my opinion of the movie's rather... interesting... casting choices. Charlize Theron looks amazing as the Queen, but I can't bring myself to see Kristen Stewart as Snow White. Mainly because I've seen Kristen Stewart.
From what I can gather, this is going to be a darker, edgier take on Snow White, where Snow White ends up becoming a sort of warrior princess figure in an attempt to vanquish the evil Queen. That, I can see. What I can't really see, though, is Stewart handling that kind of role the way it should be.
It could be that Twilight has made me typecast her in my mind, but I don't know that she can necessarily go from playing bland, helpless, hopeless, angsty, one-dimensional Bella Swan to being a convincing, strong female character like this Snow White looks like she's supposed to turn out to be.


"But jecca!" You hypothetical internet people cry, "She played Joan Jett, and Joan Jett said she was awesome at it!"


But internet (I reply), that's another reason why I have a hard time seeing her as Snow White in Snow White and the Huntsman. Joan Jett was a rocker chick. Snow White is... Well. Snow White. As it is, it's going to be hard for Snow White and the Huntsman's Snow White not to lose something in her translation from wholesome, virginal Dwarven Den Mother to Snow of Arc. I'm not entirely sure Stewart can pull that off gracefully. From what I've seen of her acting, it doesn't look like she has the kind of range something like that would demand in order to... well, not suck.


Then there's the physical aspect. While Stewart is far removed from being politely requested to go live under a bridge, I have a hard time buying her as a beauty rival to Charlize Theron. I could see someone with softer, fresher features in the role (Emma Watson or Michelle Trachtenberg, for example) that could play off of the Queen's more mature, sexier look... but I have a hard time taking Stewart-as-Snow-White seriously when it comes to the idea that the Queen is supposed to view her as a legitimate threat.

That said, I love the crows and such in the trailer, and the mirror looks really bad ass. Will I see this? Probably not, since (from what I can gather) the story looks like it boils down to a retelling of the bodyguard crush trope between Snow White and her would-be-killer-turned-protector, the Huntsman, maybe with some love triangle action thrown in with Prince Charmant. 
Why couldn't they do Neil Gaiman's "Snow, Glass, Apples" instead, or even Tanith Lee's "Red as Blood"? With Tom Waits' version of "Heigh-ho," naturally. That, I would pay good money to see.

Seriously, Hollywood.

Guys, I found the most amazing moisturizer in the world.

I picked it up on clearance at my local co-op, but you can visit the site here.


I've had a lot of trouble finding good moisturizer- they're always either sticky, greasy, or have some ingredient that makes me break out (fruit acids and fragrances are terrible at this). I have sensitive, allergic, combination skin, so I have to be insanely picky about the products I use. I'm generally limited to plain glycerin soap, Thayers alcohol-free lavender witch hazel toner, straight-up sugar for exfoliating, and dabbing a little bit of pure lavender essential oil on any breakouts I get. Occasionally, I use StriVectin's night time resurfacing serum, which is really helpful when my skin gets gross and flaky in winter.
No moisturizer.


It hasn't been for lack of trying, either. I've tried every skin care product out there, from very high end brands like La Mer, to drugstore brands like Yes to Cucumbers. I even have a hard time using eye creams, because they end up making the tops of my cheeks and my temples break out. Sucks.


So, I figured I'd try out DeVita Perfecting Time moisturizer, and so far, I like it a lot. It's a very light moisturizer, gives my skin a matte finish, and absorbs thoroughly. I've also noticed that the little dry skin lines I was getting in my forehead are pretty much gone. I wouldn't recommend it for someone who needs a moisture-rich night cream, but it's a fantastic daytime moisturizer. I wash my face, wipe on some Thayer's toner, and follow it with a little dab of moisturizer. It's a fairly thin, sort of creamy-gel-like-formula, so it doesn't take much to do my whole face.


Best of all, it's pretty much all natural, gluten free, not tested on animals, vegetarian, and GMO free. And you know how I feel about GMOs.


I like this moisturizer a lot. If you have trouble with sensitivity, cystic acne, clogged pores, or combination skin, I'd defiitely recommend giving it a try.

Where Have I Been?

Sitting on my (swollen, bruised) arse playing Dwarf Fortress, that's where.


See, stairs and I have never really been friends. Ever since a car accident when I was fifteen (as well as physical therapy, surgery, more physical therapy...) I've always kind of had a tricky time with stairs. That said, I still didn't expect to go sliding down the steps to my bedroom on my right buttcheek, landing on my face, and attempting to break my fall with my wrist.


Anyhow, long story short, I spent a good portion of time feeling like I'd been hit by a truck, and playing with dorfs. 


I wish I'd made some screen caps, but I didn't think of it at the time. So you'll just have to take my word for it when I say that my unicorn zoo, peacock farm, and crocodile-filled moat are freaking. awesome. 


Dwarf Fortress is an amazing, free game where the developer has literally thought of everything. If you've never heard of it or played it, I highly recommend trying it out. Well... okay, first read the saga of Boatmurdered, and then try it out. 


I'm going to go sit on some more ice.

Family Law Judge William Adams Beat His Disabled Daughter.

In this video, allegedly taped by Adams' daughter when she was sixteen years old, Judge Adams beats her with a belt for downloading music that was otherwise unavailable in the United States... for seven minutes straight. What is perhaps more disturbing are the judge's frequent demands that she bend over and submit, and her mother's insistence that she "take it like a woman." Sorry, lady- women don't let themselves get beaten by sadistic fucks on a power trip.


Just to let you know, this shit is hard to watch, so I'm not going to embed it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl9y3SIPt7o&feature=youtu.be&t=58s


I was hit as a kid. A lot. Always in the face, but never with objects. My brother was beaten with things- a spoon, a shoe, frankly whatever my loopy sadist of an egg donor could find at hand. As a result, we've both grown up into adults with serious anger problems, something which any psychologist will tell you is not surprising. So why doesn't a family fucking law judge know that?


Some things to consider-


This beating was administered because Ms. Adams had downloaded music and games which were not available for purchase in the United States otherwise. Pirating games is a civil offense, but is it worth a seven minute long beating? 
Ms. Adams has ataxic cerebral palsy. This is a judge assaulting a disabled child, using a belt as a weapon (This is not discipline, I don't give a fuck how your parents raised you, how you raise your kids, or how much you'll lie about how well you both turned out because of it). After his wife tried (barely) to reduce the damage, he complained about not "Getting his licks in" and returned for a second round.
If Ms. Adams had the presence of mind to set up a camera in her room to tape the abuse, do you think this was the first time something like this had happened?
To what degree do you think this astonishing lack of judgment clouds his ability to rule on child abuse cases?
Holy hell, there are sure a fuckton of complaints of poor judgment when you look up the name Judge William Adams, aren't there?
Ms. Adams states in the video description that harassment from her father is what led her to release the video. Her mother was also similarly abused, and left the marriage because of that.
Judge Adams has come out saying it was years ago, and he apologized... But this video was released on October 27th following a barrage of phone harassment from him. So, regardless of whether or not he apologized for that particular incident, he still has a hell of a lot of unresolved issues.