Time for another meme…

Take a picture of yourself right now. Don’t change your clothes, don’t fix your hair…just take a picture. Post that picture with NO editing. (Except maybe to get the image size down to something reasonable.)

Post these instructions with your picture.

Well, okay. The result is a little scary, though. Plus I’m still at the office.

I am, thankfully, mere moments away from leaving.

Well, THERE’S something you don’t see every day!

Lately, I’ve been getting a spate of “phishing” emails, at about two a day. These mails claim to come from a bank, and say something along the lines of “Your online banking has been suspended, you need to give us your banking details again.” They then point to a fake Web site that looks just like a real banking site, and try to dupe victims into typing their bank account numbers and passwords and such into the fake site. All pretty bog-standard so far.

The past few weeks has seen a very specific type of phish that’s relatively unusual; rather than trying to get me to type in my account number and password, these phish emails lead me to a site that tries to get me to download a “browser encryption update” to my computer. The “update” is, of course, a computer virus that records everything I do in my browser and sends it back to the hackers. A bit of a twist on the idea, but still basically the same thing.

What’s surprised me is the sophistication of these phishes. The fake Web sites have really long names, such as

http://ktt.key.ktt.cmd.logonFromKeyCom.productsremote.KUTglSiqAY.rnalid.viewcontent.ttioense.com/logon.htm
( *** WARNING *** *** WARNING *** *** WARNING *** This site is live as of the time of this writing, and WILL try to download malware onto your computer!)

What’s unusual about this is three things.

First, the hackers are registering a domain, rather than just hanging the phish off of a hacked Web site.

Second, the hackers are putting this domain on a large number of computers, probably hacked home PCs, spread out all over the world, so that if one of them is shut down the others will still work. As of the time of this typing, ttioense.com is living on ten different IP addresses in ten different parts of the world.

Third, the hackers are running their own name servers. They are hacking computers, setting up name servers on those computers, and then using those name servers to set up sites that pretend to be bank sites and try to download malware. Essentially, they are creating their own “shadow Internet”–their own Web sites set up on hacked computers, and their own domain name servers also set up on hacked computers.

Still pretty bog-standard, if technically sophisticated.

Hold on to your hat, Dorothy, because Kansas is about to go bye-bye.

As of the time of this writing, ttioense.com, the fake bank Web site that tries to download a virus, has two name servers:

Domain name: ttioense.com

Technical Contact:
Pamela Saul pamela@yahoo.com
3366810811 fax: 3366810811
5903 Shenandoah Road
Greensboro NC 27405
us

Billing Contact:
Pamela Saul pamela@yahoo.com
3366810811 fax: 3366810811
5903 Shenandoah Road
Greensboro NC 27405
us

DNS:
ns1.dabchecks.com
ns2.dabchecks.com

Created: 2008-10-15
Expires: 2009-10-15

Now, ns1.dabchecks.com is running on a server in the UK belonging to a company called UK Dedicated Servers Limited.

On the other hand, ns2.dabchecks.com…

ns2.dabchecks.com is running at 22.25.119.21, on an IP address belonging to the United States Department of Defense. Specifically, 22.25.119.21 belongs to the Department of Defense Network Information Center–a military network so paranoid that their main Web site won’t let you log on unless you have a special access card and you’re connecting from a .mil address.

whois 22.25.119.21

OrgName: DoD Network Information Center
OrgID: DNIC
Address: 3990 E. Broad Street
City: Columbus
StateProv: OH
PostalCode: 43218
Country: US

NetRange: 22.0.0.0 – 22.255.255.255
CIDR: 22.0.0.0/8
NetName: NICS0175
NetHandle: NET-22-0-0-0-1
Parent:
NetType: Direct Allocation
Comment:
RegDate: 1989-06-26
Updated: 2007-07-06

OrgTechHandle: MIL-HSTMST-ARIN
OrgTechName: Network DoD
OrgTechPhone: +1-614-692-2708
OrgTechEmail: HOSTMASTER@nic.mil

And that isn’t something you see every day.

Some (more) thoughts on human sexuality

A little while ago, I posted the first go-round of a map of the human sexual condition. The purpose of this map is to try to set out a rough approximation of the scope and breadth of human sexual expression–which is, even for a dedicated kinkster, quite a mammoth undertaking.

That post has attracted rather a lot of attention. I was flooded with feedback and comments–in LiveJournal, in email (boy, did I get a lot of email!), even in IM. And it’s amazing how many things I left off the first version of the sexuality map.

So I’ve been spending a lot of time working on an update to the map. The new version of the sex map has rather a lot of new stuff listed, and a whole new range of islands. Some parts were rearranged, many new ‘countries’ have been added, some parts have been clarified, and I’ve even added few embellishments. And so here, finally, is the new version! (Clicky the map for a much, much, MUCH bigger picture)

I’ve received a lot of emails requesting that I think about making a poster version of the Map. I’m probably also going to make a floor-to-ceiling giclee print of the Map for myself, though I doubt too many folks will be interested in those; it’ll probably cost me around a hundred bucks or so to print. (But still, damn! What a neat wall hanging for the bedroom.)

Anyway, I definitely appreciate all the feedback from the first version, and I’m interested in hearing what you all have to say about this version.

Eventually, I’ll put an interactive version of this map on my Web site, as soon as I can find some PHP code somewhere that’ll let me register mouse clicks and draw images of a stick pin at the click coordinates. The code I’ve found so far redraws the entire graphic, which isn’t realistic as the GIF image weighs in at damn near one and a half megabytes.

Call to the Lazyweb: PHP programming

I’m nearly finished with a rather radical overhaul of the Map of Human Sexuality, and one of the things I thought would be cool to do with it would be to make it interactive.

What I’d like to be able to do is to place it on a Web page, then allow folks to stick push pins in it by clicking or dragging on it. Ideally, folks could also, if they wanted, save it with a name/password, and be able to link to their version of it.

What I have: PHP, Perl (though I’d prefer PHP), mySQL. I know there must already be code floating around out there somewhere that does the heavy lifting (records mouse clicks, places a graphic of a pin over another graphic, saves the array of pin locations in a database), so it’s be pretty silly to code it all from scratch. Plus, y’know, I’m not sure my PHP chops are up to it.

But I’m not finding anything.

Anyone know of any open source code or libraries that might be useful?

The Stupification of a Generation…

…or, how to learn to stop worrying and love teh pr0n.

There’s an article that went up on Newsweek’s site this week about a book. The book is about porn, or more specifically “The Pornification Of A Generation.”

Now, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that we’re a country that is, not to put too fine a point on it, deeply fucked-up about sex. We are simultaneously awash in sexual imagery and hopelessly sexually repressed, and that tension doesn’t make for healthy attitudes about porn OR sex.

I haven’t read the book that the article talks about, so I don’t know if the book is as badly written, but the article seems to make a lot of unwarranted assumptions and unsupported conclusions. It also uses a lot of over-the-top, emotionally manipulative language (like “I realized porn culture and I were in a death match for my daughter’s soul”), and it’s DEFINITELY been my experience that you can’t really expect reasoned, measured investigation of a complex subject from folks who talk this way.

If you look at the way the article cloaks a lot of hidden assumptions in its use of language…well, let’s just say it sets off my baloney detector1. It doesn’t take long, either; the second paragraph of the article begins “In a market that sells high heels for babies and thongs for tweens, it doesn’t take a genius to see that sex, if not porn, has invaded our lives. Whether we welcome it or not, television brings it into our living rooms and the Web brings it into our bedrooms.”

It’s reasonable to say that porn is more accessible at this point than it has been in the past, but to say that it comes into our lives and into our bedrooms “whether we welcome it or not” is simply stupid. It’s not like “porn” is sitting somewhere inside the Internet with the magical ability to leap through your computer or TV set and, I don’t know, wave naked pictures of Angelina Jolie in front of your face or invade France or something. I personally don’t have that big a taste for porn, and if I don’t particularly feel like seeing any, I don’t. No magic involved; I just don’t go to porn Web sites or watch “Debby Does Dozens XXXVI” on the DVD player unless I…

…actually want to. You know?

Anyway, the article then goes on to say, “But it isn’t just sex that Scott is worried about. He’s more interested in how we, as a culture, often mimic the most raunchy, degrading parts of it—many of which, he says, come directly from pornography. In “The Porning of America” (Beacon), which he has written with colleague Carmine Sarracino, a professor of American literature, the duo argue that, through Bratz dolls and beyond, the influence of porn on mainstream culture is affecting our self perceptions and behavior—in everything from fashion to body image to how we conceptualize our sexuality.”

Which misses the point so spectacularly that if there was an award for point-missing kind of like the Oscars, with actresses in ten-thousand-dollar dresses and limos parked around the block and so on, this guy would be strutting his stuff on the red carpet like Paris Hilton on a bender.

See, here’s the thing. People are interested in and curious about sex; it kind of, err, goes with being human. Basic biological drive, y’know? And we live in a culture that is so repressed about sex that we refuse to even talk about it, yet at the same time we hook into this basic biological drive in advertising and marketing and media, because, well, it works.

So yeah, we’re surrounded by sexualized imagery, but we refuse to talk about it openly. So we create a social environment where kids grow up in a vacuum; the grownups won’t talk to them about sex, the parents are too embarrassed and ashamed to talk about sex, and they’re surrounded by sexual images without any sort of context. Y’think that might get confusing?

This confusion isn’t the fault of the imagery; it’s the fault of chickenshit grownups who refuse to have a grown-up conversation about sex. When you create an environment that says sex is fun and enticing and then you treat the entire topic with a deep, red-faced shame, people are going to get fucked in the head.

And that’s the most reasonable part of the article. The rest of it is like an inverted version of those stories your grandfather told you as a kid; no matter where you go from there, it’s downhill. In the snow. Both ways.

The red-carpet bender continues with this little gem: “All you have to do is live here on a daily basis, and you pick this stuff up through every medium,” says Sarracino, who teaches at Pennsylvania’s Elizabethtown College. “But it’s been so absorbed that it has almost ceased to exist as something separate from the culture.”

Attitudes about sex and sexuality are one of the defining aspects of culture. “Culture” in this context is the tastes, attitudes, ideas, and beliefs that are shared by a society. A shared set of ideas about sex doesn’t exist as something separate from a culture? Thank you, Captain Obvious, for illuminating THAT with a harsh white light that will shine as a beacon of knowledge for generations. You may go now.

OF COURSE sexual attitudes don’t exist as something “separate from the culture.” That’s what culture is. What the captain here is trying to say is something different: namely, that cultural ideas and taboos about sex are changing. And they are. That’s absolutely correct.

But then, wait, it gets better. The very next sentence is this: “The prevalence or porn leaves today’s children with a lot of conflicting ideas and misconceptions, says Lyn Mikel Brown, the coauthor of “Packaging Girlhood,” about marketers’ influence on teen girls. “All this sex gives a misinformed notion of what it means to be grown-up.””

Y’think? I wonder why that is. Could it be that, oh, I don’t know, we’re not giving kids any sort of framing or context in which to place and understand this sexual imagery? Could it be that grownups won’t talk to kids about sex, grownups won’t be honest and direct about sex, and so kids end up inventing their own context? Might it be, just maybe, that if we as a society weren’t so goddamn hung up on having sex, selling sex, depicting sex, and doing everything under the sun except TALKING ABOUT sex, that kids would find it easier to put sex into context?

Take something that people really, really want to do, because it’s fun and it feels good and they have genes that make doing it something of an imperative. Spend a tremendous amount of time perfecting the art of depicting this thing until it’s honed to a razor-fine edge. Surround people with it, and then whenever they ask you about it, snatch it away and tell them they should feel ashamed. Rinse and repeat, oh, I don’t know, thirty or forty thousand times. Think they’ll end up with misinformed notions about what it is? Really? Who knew?

“The authors of “So Sexy So Soon” (Ballantine), which came out last month, believe that part of the problem for children is that they lack the emotional sophistication to understand the images they see.” Yeah. You know why they lack that emotional sophistication? Because we’re so goddamned obsessed with treating children like they’re little china dolls or something that we refuse to give them that emotional sophistication. We deliberately, with the resolution of a Muslim suicide bomber, make goddamn well and sure that kids don’t get the tools they need to understand the images they see, and not only that, we teach them that it’s shameful to even try.

Then we tell them that if they’re not good in the sack, they’re not good people.

YOU try to figure that one out.

“Last year, the American Psychological Association put out a compelling report that described the sexualization of young girls: a process that entails being stripped of all value except the sexual use to which they might be put. Once they subscribe to that belief, say some psychologists, those girls begin to self-objectify—with consequences ranging from cognitive problems to depression and eating disorders.” Mmm-hmm. And this is the fault of who, exactly? Pornographers who kick down the door and wave nudie pictures around in the living room whether we want it or not? Magazines that have learned that making girls feel bad about themselves is a devastatingly effective marketing hook? Parents who fel that their greatest duty as the guardians of society is to ensure that the next generation of bright young people grows up as ashamed and conflicted about sex and sexuality as they are?

My money’s on numbers two and three. I’ve never had anyone force porn into my home against my will. Maybe it’s the lock on the door, I don’t know. Or maybe it’s because nobody is FORCING anything on anyone.

“It’s the porn ideal of sex as commodity in a competitive market—and to see rapper Nelly swipe a credit card through a young girl’s backside in a music video only reaffirms that notion. It’s artificiality as a replacement for authenticity.”

No, it’s adults who are scared to death of authenticity, who leave their children to figure out what all this means because Heaven knows that teaching kids how to understand all of this in context is just way too much to ask.

Listen, this should be obvious. The world is a big and confusing place. Part of a parent’s job is teaching the skills that a child needs in order to learn to make sense of it. That’s what adults do. When we as a society abdicate this responsibility, we can hardly go crying about the results.

1 Carl Sagan, in the book The Demon Haunted World, sets out a list of cognitive tools he describes as a “Baloney Detection Kit.” It’s a great set of tools for spotting flim-flam or sloppy reasoning, and I highly recommend this book.

Call to the Lazyweb

Surely there’s someone on my flist with knowledge of taxes and corporate employment:

The company I work with, and in which I’m a minority partner, is starting to make noises that they want me in the office religiously from 9 AM to 5 PM. Now, they’ve made noises like this in the past, which I’ve largely ignored, but the noises they’re making these days are getting louder and more damaging to my calm.

Last year, I was paid on a 1099. I’m not an accountant, but my understanding is that an independent contractor isn’t considered an independent contractor if the folks paying him control when he is on premises and/or how he does his job; legally, or so I believe, under those circumstances a person is considered to be an “employee” and is paid on a W-2.

I’m also told that the IRS takes a very dim view of folks who label people “independent contractors” when they are actually “employees,” and that there’s a certain amount of hot water that awaits such folks. That being the case, it’d seem I have a degree of…leverage in maintaining a certain level of flexibility with regard to when I am and am not in the office, particularly in light of the fact that they still owe me money as it is.

So what’s the scoop? I know someone out there must be up on this stuff.

Right place, right time

I’ve always been a fan of William Shakespeare, who really is very good in spite of all the people who say he really is very good (unlike, for example, F. Scott Fitzgerald, who really is pretty mediocre in spite of all the people who say he really is very good).

I can’t help but think, though, that the characters Hamlet and Othello were not tragic figures so much as people in the wrong place at the wrong time. Both plays would be quite different if those two characters merely switched places.

See, the deal with Hamlet is that he overthinks everything, whereas the deal with Othello is that he’s rash and quick to judgement. Hamlet would never for even half a second have been fooled by Iago, whereas Othello would never for even half a second put up with his mom shagging his dad’s murderer.

So. What would the plays look like if we swapped them around?

Othello Act III, Scene iii

IAGO: I do not like the office:
But, sith I am enter’d in this cause so far,
Prick’d to’t by foolish honesty and love,
I will go on. I lay with Cassio lately;
And, being troubled with a raging tooth,
I could not sleep.
There are a kind of men so loose of soul,
That in their sleeps will mutter their affairs:
One of this kind is Cassio:
In sleep I heard him say ‘Sweet Desdemona,
Let us be wary, let us hide our loves;’
And then, sir, would he gripe and wring my hand,
Cry ‘O sweet creature!’ and then kiss me hard,
As if he pluck’d up kisses by the roots
That grew upon my lips: then laid his leg
Over my thigh, and sigh’d, and kiss’d; and then
Cried ‘Cursed fate that gave thee to the Moor!’

HAMLET: You know, you actually had me going there for a minute. But seriously, you are so full of shit. See, I actually talked to Cassio after that deal in the garden, and you know what? I totally don’t believe you.

DESDEMONA: Dude, you rock.

Hamlet is even shorter after we do the swap.

HAMLET Act I, Scene ii

QUEEN GERTRUDE: Good Othello, cast thy nighted colour off,1
And let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark.
Do not for ever with thy vailed lids
Seek for thy noble father in the dust:
Thou know’st ’tis common; all that lives must die,
Passing through nature to eternity.

OTHELLO: Look, Mom. Look…er, Dad. This is ridiculous. Sorry, but I’m afraid I have to cut your heads off now.

(OTHELLO draws his sword, cuts off GERTRUDE’S HEAD and CLAUDIUS’ HEAD.)

THE GHOST: Dude, you rock.

1 This line becomes even funnier when you consider that Othello is a Moor.