Who is it?

Hello fellow eccentrics!

A quick one today, but a really cool video. A run down on the art of disguise by former CIA Chief of Disguise Jonna Mendez. Informative and interesting, and it left me with the question: if she is allowed to talk about this, what are they up to these days?

Anyway, enjoy and we'll see eah other again next week!

Direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JASUsVY5YJ8

Is it legal?

Last Tuesday, October 17, 2018, Canada legalized cannabis for recreational use. It had been legal for medicinal purposes since 2001, but this new unbanning made Canada the second country in the world to take this step after Uruguay.

Now it's nothing new for things to be banned for different reasons and then unbanned at some point in the future, and that's what we're talking about today.

First out of the gate we have a thing that King Edward II first banned in 1314 and later on Kings Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV and Henry V followed suit with. What could be so bad that several English Kings would ban it? Why football, of course!

I assume you're wondering why football was banned, and well Edward II was worried that people made too much noise and disturbed the peace (fair enough) and that they neglected their archery practice. At the time, England's archers were rightly feared across Europe, but archery is hard and requires lots of practise. The other kings on the list also claimed to have been worried about the lack of shooting practice, but there might have been another reason; the aristocracy couldn't play. Football was a common sport and they got jealous of the fun commoners were having.

As an aside, Edward III actually banned all sports, and Henry VIII also banned bowling, but only partially, as he himself was a passionate bowler.

In case you're aghast, wondering how they could ban football, try banning Christmas. To no-ones surprise, we lay this one at the feet of the fun hating puritans. Festivities were banned in 1644 and in 1659 the party-poopers decided that any celebration, even Christmas, was a sin. They also viewed Christmas as a pagan holiday. A few years later, the New England puritans followed suit, and all this misery lasted until 1660 (1681 in NE) when Christmas came back.

Staying in the mists of history, we find the banning of coffee shops in 1675. King Charles II was a bit paranoid and convinced that people were plotting against him. Since coffee shops were the equivalent of bars today, it made them the logical place to meet and plot. Charles also claimed that coffee shops made people lazy and created a public disturbance. In the end the ban was abolished two days before it was supposed to come into effect.

Let's skip forward a bit now and talk about clothes. Women wearing specific items of clothing in fact. I could go on about early bathing costumes or indeed how shocking the bikini originally was, but I have something more ridiculous in mind: French women wearing trousers in public!

In 1800, the Paris chief of police declared that women had to get police permission to wear men's clothing. Then in 1892 the law was amended with the condition that women could wear trousers in public as long as they held on to a horses reins at all times. This was further amended in 1909 to include bicycles, but the woman had to hold on to the handlebars at all times, or else... In 1969 the then chief of Paris police was asked by the city council to get rid of the stupid law, but he refused. He was of the opinion that one couldn't know what crazy things the fashion industry might come up with next, so the law might be needed yet. Mind you, this law had not been enforced in years. Most people didn't even know it existed. There was an attempt to repeal the law again in 2003 but it failed. The irony is of course that both female police officers and public officials had been wearing trousers in public sans horse or bike for decades. Finally the law was laid to rest in 2013... Five years ago. I guess we can conclude that the French don't make hasty decisions.

That's that. Until next time, have a great week and try not to break any odd laws!

Sue the Food

Have you ever read the content list that's printed on everything we eat and drink? It can sometimes be a pretty scary revelation. As a personal example, I drink Ice Tea in the mornings as it contains less sugar than orange juice. Go figure...

Today, we're looking at curious lawsuits filed against the food industry, some merited, some not so much. And, no, the woman who sued McDonalds for burning herself isn't on the list. She got second and third degree burns from spilling the coffee in her lap, so that's another story entirely.

Canada Dry is a ginger ale made by Dr. Pepper. They have been sued twice for not actually having ginger in the drink even though the label says Made with real ginger. The corporation defends itself by claiming that the flavoring is partially made with real ginger. A commercial aired in 2011 even shows a ginger farmer so it's not too far fetched to assume it would contain ginger. Read the label, folks.

Staying on the topic of missing ingredients, the doughnut maker Krispy Kreme was sued in 2016 by Jason Saidian when he discovered that their Chocolate Iced Raspberry Filled, Glazed Raspberry Filled, Maple Bar and Glazed Blueberry Cake treats didn't contain raspberries, maple or blueberries, respectively. Curiously though, their Glazed Lemon Filled and Glaze Strawberry Filled doughnuts do contain the advertized fruits, so it's actually not too far fetched to assume the other sweet treats should contain what they say they do. If that shock is worth $5 million is another matter entirely.

In 2009, Roy Werbel sued the Kellogg's corporation due to the fact that their Froot Loops cereal didn't contain fruit. The judge dismissed the suit since fruit is not spelled FROOT and it doesn't come in loops.

In 2017 in California, a woman sued the jelly bean manufacturer Jelly Belly for tricking her into believing that their Sport Beans were sugar free. Instead of sugar the packet read “evaporated cane juice” and the FDA supports her suit, stating that juice can only be claimed if it is referring to fruits or vegetables. The claim isn't yet settled, but I do think the woman has a fair point.

Then we have to unusual case of Athena Hohenburg who became outraged when she had, based on a commercial for Nutella, fed it to her daughter thinking it was healthy. It's in fact about as healthy as a candy bar, and she filed suit. Dumb parent doesn't think for herself right? Well no, as Nutella agreed with her, changed their commercial and agreed to pay up to $20 per household if you filed claim within a certain period. (That was six years ago, so tough luck getting any money now). Corporation admits to being wrong? Miracles sometimes do happen...

Speaking of sweets, the makers of Chobani Greek Yogurt needs to shape up a bit. In 2014 two men, Barry Stoltz from Scarsdale and Allan Chang from Queens slapped the yogurt company with a lawsuit for their product. The lawsuit points out that there is nothing Greek about the product, and that it contains as much sugar as a Nestle Fudge ice cream bar, while sporting a label that screams 0%.

Chobani's defense was that Greek yogurt is a style of food that doesn't have to come from Greece (fair point) and that the 0% means no fat (which it didn't say at all). Finally they claimed a as defense that a similar case against them was dismissed in California. Great legal argument there guys... First class.

Well there you have it, and that's it for me. Until next time, have a safe and tasty week!

I never thought about it like that

Welcome to a new installment of Eccentric Spheres. Before we get to this weeks main topic, I want to do a bit of a public service here.

During the weekend, I got a warning email that my Ubisoft account had been tampered with. This is the second one of these I've gotten, and I've received one about my Gmail being tampered with as well. Both times I did change my password, just in case, but here is the kicker: Change the password from the main account page by going there yourself.

Never click a link in an email like this, absolutely never!

With the second “warning” I pulled up Ubisoft's account page and letter by letter compared the link in the mail with the URL that I knew was 100% Ubisoft. It was close, very close. If the real site is account.ubi, then the mail was ubi-account etc. In other words, if you don't know the URL by heart, you'll miss it. Besides, all the logos were correct and everything looked really official. But none the less this is nothing but a phishing scam looking to rob you.

By all means change your passwords if you feel the need, just take the time to go to the account page manually and leave the phishing links in the gutter where they belong.

Okay, now let's get to what you came here for.

Last week I found a Youtube channel called WhatisAntiLogic that puts new twists on familiar horror movies, and the best one I've seen is called The Shining: There are no ghosts.

In it, he very logically lays out a theory that explains all the happenings in Kubrick's movie and how there are no ghosts or demons. His theory fills in quite a few loopholes in the film, that I've always wondered about. Mind you, these are his personal theories, not the actual intent of the filmmakers.

So enjoy an entirely new look at some older movies, and until next time stay safe, keep your accounts safe and have a great week!

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4NTVKU6Prs

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5xgni03DE8

Here Fido...

Everyone and their grandma knows about guard dogs, right? But what if you don't want a dog? Or maybe you're allergic to dogs?

Here are some creative solutions if you need an alternative to dogs to guard your property and or livestock.

Geese

Using geese to guard the farm is an old technique. The reason they are so good, is that thanks to their stellar eyesight they spot intruders easily and then they get very loud, alerting you. Should an intruder desire to bribe the geese, they get excited and equally loud. So a no win situation for trespassers.

Donkeys and Llamas

These animals aren't that good at keeping away humans, though they can do so in a pinch, but they are wonderful at keeping foxes and coyotes away from your livestock. Donkeys charge ferociously with hooves and teeth and they get so angry that their owners can't even go near until they calm down.

Llamas are nicer to people, unless it's an un-castrated male, in which case it will likely become over protective of it's “herd” even if the herd is not even mammalian.

Wolves

If you want guard dogs, but something more dramatic, do what some villages in Kazakhstan does: get wolf cubs and hand rear them to be guards. The villagers treat the wolves like dogs, and as long as they are fed, they remain calm. Some experts are skeptical however, as a wolf is never 100% tame.

Alligators and Crocodiles

Some drug dealers in the U.S. have been known to keep gators as guards for their drug stashes. The upside is that the gators ignore the drugs, the downside is that they can't be trained and remain dangerous for their owners.

The head of the Indonesian drug enforcement program, fed up with corruption has decided to build a prison surrounded by crocodiles, as they are even harder to bribe than geese. His initiative has been met with skepticism, which is understandable, but points for thinking outside the box.

Dolphins and Sea lions

Both are used and trained by the U.S. Navy to guard ships against divers and in the case of the dolphins, find mines.

Snakes

Apparently, many people in South Africa has taken to guarding their homes and businesses with snakes, ranging from brown house snakes to boa constrictors. Even if there are no snakes, signs stating Beware of Snakes can be found in many places.

Well, that's that, join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

The lootbox drama

So, the international lootbox controversy continues.

If you're not in the know, a rising trend in recent years in the video game industry has been to sell players so called lootboxes. In benign situations, these boxes are awarded for free in-game, and only contain cosmetic items. No game changing content at all.

But, in many games, these boxes have essentially replaced progression. Instead of being given some kind of increase in ability or equipment designed to be fun and fair, you get boxes of random stuff. Stuff that are completely game changing if you are lucky. To make matters worse, unscrupulous developers and publishers also sell these boxes for real money. Not in-game money, but actual dollars and cents, giving players who are willing and able to wave their credit cards around an unbeatable advantage.

This is the short version, it goes much deeper, but for the purpose of this post, this is what you need to know.

Now, in the past year, governments and legislative bodies have noticed the fury of players sickened and outraged by these business practices. Especially when the words “Gambling” and “Children” started being bandied around.

The problem is that in many games you can win rare in-game items, items that can then be sold off to other players for real money, even up to thousands of dollars. Again, that's actual dollars and euros. And unless their parents are paying attention, children are doing this.

It began small, with Belgium. Belgium went to far as to deem these lootboxes as illegal gambling and banned them on penalty of heavy fines and potential jail time. The AAA game publishers recoiled in horror but complied. All except Electronic Arts (EA). They refused to give up their supreme cash-cow, FIFA 18 (with 19 on the way). EA claimed that they don't agree with the interpretation of the law, and kept on selling in-game stuff for real money. Belgium wasn't too happy and are now dragging EA kicking and screaming to court. If Belgium wins (and I hope they do), EA could be fined about $1.8 million or so, and someone could be going to prison. We'll see how that goes.

But our saga does not end there. My native country of Finland has also jumped into the fray. The Finnish police are now investigating if these lootboxes are breaking the law. In Finland you must have a license from the government to run anything even remotely gambling related. My information might be a little outdated, but at least it used to be that if your club or school wanted to run a lottery for whatever prizes you had, and the tickets cost real money, you had to get the approval of the police. So I can understand why the police are looking into this.

But wait, there's more.

A panel of experts in Australia has decided that this kind of system of lootboxes are absolutely gambling and now, 15 countries and the U.S. State of Washington are scrutinizing the disgusting little boxes. The countries are:

Austria

Czech Republic

France

Gibraltar

Ireland

Isle of Man

Jersey

Latvia

Malta

The Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Spain

UK

If even a few of the bigger countries come down against lootboxes with the same kind of penalties as Belgium, then the AAA publishers are screwed. Their golden geese are slaughtered and it's all their own faults. The standard excuse is that it's too expensive to make games these days, but many many developers are managing it just fine without predatory micro-transactions. Imagine if the car industry did the same. You buy a car, but there are no seats and the roof is a net. All because it's too expensive to make cars. Yeah right.

As the drama unfolds, I'll be talking about it here. And until next time, have a great week!

Slice of history

Good morning fellow eccentrics. Short entry today, because of reasons, so I present to you a Estonian made documentary about the fall of the Soviet Union.

I'll see you again next time, so until then have a great week!

Direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYD6ouVHXbo