Use our landfills, or we'll sue!

More enviro news out of California. I heard the tail-end of this on "As It Happens" last night, so was intrigued to learn more. Eddie House of San Carlos, CA, has cancelled his trash collections service because he found that he could recycle or safely dispose of everything himself. Now the city is suing him, seeking a court order to make him not only reinstate weekly pick-ups, but also to reimburse the city for attorney and court fees. It doesn't get much dumber than this. Mr. House went so far as to propose bi-weekly collection as a compromise, but no, that wasn't good enough for the fat cats down in city hall.

I've been wondering myself for quite a while why we don't recycle more. At my house we have a huge trash can that, each week, goes to the curb accompanied by a much smaller bin for recyclables. Shouldn't it be the other way around? So much of the stuff we consider "trash" can be recycled - why not change "trash collection" into "recycling service." Shift the paradigm, people, and use the clutch! Even better, remove the onus of sorting from the customer - many a time I find myself wondering, can this go in the recycling? And as often as not, if I don't know, it goes to the trash. People are lazy, and there's empirical evidence that, when confronted with a decision and a shortage of information, people take the path of least resistance. Make it easier, and more people will do it.

Blogwhore?

Mel and I wonder if there's a word for "one who attempts to get mentioned in others' blogs so that they can mention those references in their own blog." Any suggestions?

UPDATE: I just realized that I forgot to include the link that makes the whole thing pointful. Cuz that was me, with the question and stuff.

Hey! Are you listening to me?

Ever wonder if you're a boring/annoying person? Friend Mary points out this new technology targeted at autistic folk, but sure to be a boon for those of us suffering our own personal insecurities &c. I know one of my classmates could definitely do with some kind of feedback regarding her annoyance factor. On the other hand, about 80% of the time that I'm boring or irritating, I'm aware of it and ignore it, so this might not help me.

My fave line is: "When presented with fresh video clips, the software gets people's emotions right 90 per cent of the time when the clips are of actors, and 64 per cent of the time on footage of ordinary people."

What this tells me is that ordinary people are not adequately expressing their emotions, and that we need more training in how to do so in standardized ways.

Buy stuff. DO IT!

"Product placement" - a nice little euphemism for "advertising disguised as something else" - has gotten so pervasive, and it's really starting to annoy me. I suppose it's inevitable in a society of the money, by the money, and for the money, but at what point do people say "ENOUGH!"? (I am intrigued by Adbusters, but what impact have they had?) I doubt I can just stop buying everything that annoys me with its marketing. (Although A-1 steak sauce is off the list, and I won't really miss it. I actually don't even like the idea of subjecting you, dear reader, to that ad, but I must share the annoyance!)

I've bitched about this before - ads in menus, 3 minutes of ads ahead of the trailers at a movie, name dropping on TV programs (e.g., T-Mobile (regularly) and Home Depot (recently) on The Closer - otherwise one of the best shows that's ever been on TV), designed into clothes, ads being transmitted into our dreams - oh, wait - that one's not real...yet.

I'm surfing the internets and the TV is tuned to the Science Channel. And there's this show about building stuff - they're talking about roller coasters tonight. The show starts out with the host doing a voice over about how after he graduated from college, he wanted to "learn the stuff you don't find in books" or some such. During this voice over, wherein he uses words that connote rugged masculinity, they show him walking across a desert landscape backed by towering mountains, toward his black Toyota Tundra. Then he takes off, leaving a trail of dust, and the camera zooms in on the Toyota emblem on the grille.

Ben pointed out: Hey, at least Toyota's sponsoring a program about science/engineering, rather than some "reality" tripe. Which is a valid point, yes. But why can't they say "This program is sponsored in part by Toyota blah blah blah"? Why the conceit of an ad, with all its psychological bs? (Is it ironic that Toyota is also listed as a sponsor for The Closer?)

Oh, then, just to piss me off a little bit more, he comes to Minnesota, to look at some bigass roller coaster at Valley Fair... IN A SNOWSTORM. WTF?!? COME ON!

Mystery meat navigation

You might be familiar with the site Web Pages That Suck. It was put together by webguy Vincent Flanders shortly after the web became world-wide, and his goal is to encourage good website design by highlighting bad website design. One pervasive offense in web design is called mystery meat navigation (MMN).

[Sidebar: If the site is run by Vincent Flanders, can't he just tell us what MMN is? Why the pretense of "Wikipedia says..."? I don't walk around saying, "According to a predefined subset of the population, I like dogs," when I can just say, "I like dogs." It seems like unnecessary horn-tooting. It also seems like the kind of thing one might read about on Language Log....]

Every once in a while, as I blunder around the internet, I stumble across wonderful examples of MMN. This site is the "best" example I've seen in a long time. See that 3x6 block of fleurs-de-lis? Those are links. Where do they go? Who knows! They might point to a recipe for brownies, or to a government anti-drug site, or a wikipedia entry for Cody Rhodes. Or, most of them might point to the page itself (Hint: they do).

Are you psychotic?

What the crap?

I caught this show on the Sci Fi channel (no, not their new Flash Gordon series). It's called Mind Control with Derren Brown - he's a British guy, looks to be about my age, and he does "psychological magic" where he gives the impression of psychic power and/or mind control, but without pretending to be psychic. He doesn't explain all the tricks - no good magician does - but his show's website does reveal some of the psychology behind them.

On tonight's show, he has a psychologist do "word dissociation" with him. He says a word, and the shrink is supposed to say a word that has nothing to do with the original word. But, before he says the "source" word, he writes a different word on a piece of paper (outside the sight of the shrink, who takes residence on his own couch). They go for five rounds.

Round 1: He writes orange, he says suit, shrink says apple.
Round 2: He writes trash, he says picture, shrink says horse.
Round 3: He writes water-ski, he says eating, shrink says water-ski.
Round 4: He writes school, he says tie, shrink says school.
Round 5: He writes buffalo, he says [nothing], shrink says buffalo.

No clue how he pulled that off.... unless he really is psychic, and is just pretending to not be! That would be a brilliant scam.