cyberbarf

VOLUME 15 NO.4

EXAMINE THE NET WAY OF LIFE

NOVEMBER, 2015

NOT LOST BUT FOUND

iTOONS

WORST INTERNET IDEA EVER

BARFETTES

WHETHER REPORT

FANTASY OF FANTASY SPORTS

 

NEW REAL NEWS KOMIX! SHOW HACK!

HALLOWEEN SHOW!

 

©2015 Ski

All Rights Reserved Worldwide

Distributed by pindermedia.com, inc.

 

NOT LOST BUT FOUND

ON THE INTERNET

 

 

Google changed course by announcing that it will let developers build interactivity into watch faces.

Tap on an Android Wear watch face and all sorts of things can happen. You can see an expanded weather forecast, dive deeper into your activity monitoring data, or open your latest email without ever leaving the first screen.

It is a little like the way Apple handles complications, but could soon turn into something much more. And in a lot of ways, this added functionality is just the most recent attempt to figure out how we can and should be using this new form of gadgetry.

Smartwatches have not really caught on; making them even simpler to use might help.

 

cyberbarf.com

EXAMINE THE NET WAY OF LIFE

iToons

 

 

cyberbarf

WORST INTERNET IDEA EVER CYBERCULTURE

This is probably the worst idea the internet has ever thought of: Yelp for People.

The Peeple app was touted as a place where individuals could critique their fellow human beings. Besides being a cringe worthy premise, the whole idea of public ratings of a person seems unseemly. There are enough self-worth and self-esteem issues in the general population. More than 51 percent of U.S. households are now headed by single persons. This means the relationship sector is in a deep recession. Fifty percent of married couples divorce. The percentage is higher for those who divorce multiple times. So why add another potential barrier for those who are seeking companionship.

Sites like Tinder and OKCupid are based on the fact that Americans are lonely. They are looking to engage in physical relationships but in the real world it is very hard to overcome the fear of rejection in face to face first meetings. Today, technology and culture have made the dating scene a seven second swipe of first impressions without any one-to-one interaction. Judging a book by his or her cover photograph is becoming the norm. The shallowness of certain segments of the dating populous will probably create more problems down the road in how people view themselves in the genetic pool.

But if you add trolls, stalkers, bullies and bad mouths into the thin equation of cyberdating through a people rating app, people will never leave their houses. Who wants to meet another person if Gordon Ramsey is the third wheel? “Did you really say that to her? You are a F'ing moron!”

The Internet has allowed everyone to voice their opinions. To be a critic on any topic without regard of fact checking, gate keeping or at times, common sense. What social or culture benefit is there to rating human beings like they were restaurants? None, that we can think of.

Relationships are hard enough to start and maintain without outside forces judging people. People must now be accustomed to their personal blinders as the focus on the narrow screen of their smartphones. They must not realize the harm flippant remarks or untrue comments can be to other people. You do not have to think, research or fact check any comment you make on the Internet because everyone believes in the false assumption that your opinion is protected speech. That is why trolls feel empowered to spew more and more venom at their targets.

If you add a layer of anonymous reviewers, the slander or libel factor increases dramatically. But the US courts have now consistently held that there is no safe harbor for anonymous posters on Internet sites from civil prosecution for libel or slander. Sites and service providers will give up URL and account information if requested by court subpoenas.

So why would someone think rating people is a valuable service? As the Washington Post article put it: the most surprising thing about Peeple - - -basically Yelp, but for humans - - -may be the fact that no one has yet had the gall to launch something like it. However, tech sites indicate that this idea was floated about five years ago but it failed to launch. When the app does launch, probably in late November, you will be able to assign reviews and one- to five-star ratings to everyone you know: your exes, your co-workers, the old guy who lives next door. Initially, a person could not opt out - - - once someone puts your name in the Peeple system, it's there unless you violate the site's terms of service.

And an individual cannot delete bad or biased reviews - - - since the site owners think that would defeat the whole purpose. Imagine every interaction you have ever had suddenly open to the scrutiny of the public. “People do so much research when they buy a car or make those kinds of decisions,” said Julia Cordray, one of the app's founders. “Why not do the same kind of research on other aspects of your life?”

To be on the app, a reviewer needs to be 21 or older, have a Facebook account, and use their real name to write anything on the app. If they want to review someone who is not on the app, they will be prompted to enter the other person's cell phone number, so that the reviewee can receive a text notification that they've been added. Another scary part of this app is that no one can opt out from the service - - -once your name is in the database, you are in the app forever. But if you decide not to sign up, allegedly only positive reviews will appear on your profile, as negative ones can only go up if you are registered and can approve or dispute the review. This means people who voluntarily or involuntarily join the application community are imprisoned in it. Besides the clear violation of personal privacy and data mining facebook names and phone numbers, what does the Peeple owners think they are going to accomplish except for investor capital?

In what feels like a truly dystopian nightmare, the web is in a current state of uproar over the idea of such an app existing, as many believe it will lead to bullying and harassment. The ease of unchecked harassment and negative reviews of people which could damage reputations, relationships, marriages and employment. Celebrities were especially galled by the prospect of being subject to de-humanizing reviews of not their professional work but judgments on the character from people who do not know them. Later, during the backlash, CEO and cofounder Cordray changed the course of the conversation around Peeple. She wrote that changes were coming to the app and that users will now only exist on the app if they opt-in, and no negative reviews will ever make it to your page (or so the company believes). This now sounds like a self parody of Safe Space from a recent South episode. It is hard to believe that negative comments will not make it through any checks or balances. But what sliver of humanity has a sadistic need to opt in to a group whose very purpose is to critically judge you?

In today's modern world, people need more supportive communities not judgmental apps for public ridicule.

cyberbarf

EXAMINE THE NET WAY OF LIFE

cyberbarf

FANTASY OF FANTASY SPORTS ARTICLE

When the Nevada Gaming Commission, the most progressive gaming organization in the US, declared that fantasy sports sites are gambling sites subject to regulation, most people would agree with that conclusion.

But the general public continues to wager millions. Fans are signing up and paying to win prize money by predicting the stats of professional athletes in various sporting events. And to drive business, these fantasy sites use daily games and participation levels to rope in the causal fan.

Since it is automated, there is an ease to fill out a simple roster sheet, pay your money, and wait 24 hours for the result. The result is usually pretty meager. Tech sites have calculated that only the top 1.3 percent of players take the winnings. These professionals use exotic software management systems to make thousands of bets to corner the predictive market of results. This is similar to the Texas Hold Em poker fad, where normal people gave up their day jobs to head to Vegas to become professional poker players. 99 percent of those seeking out the fame and fortune of being a poker player crashed and burned in the wake of the skill of true professionals.

But televised poker tournaments and stories of the ma and pa shop owner sitting at the final table does continue to spur the dream of an easy, rich lifestyle to those sitting in the living room couch, beaten down by underemployment or financial woes. Americans will find the easy path to fame or fortune. That is the lure of gambling: anyone can do it and the payout seems greater than effort. Within 2 hours of anyone's home, you can find a form of legalized gambling.

The question of whether fantasy sites are legal is now the center of attention by state gambling commissions and the federal government. By fantasy “owners ”filling out a roster card and waiting for a result is no different than walking up to a horse race betting window and doing a trifecta box bet using all the horses in the field. The horse better is still gambling on the outcome of the future performance of equine athletes. A fantasy player is filling out an all star basketball roster to win money on their collective future game performance. There is little “skill” in filling out a fantasy card, even though the operators of the sites strongly disagree.

They have to because games of “skill” are not gambling so skill pursuits are not regulated by state and federal criminal statues. The fantasy sites that do daily games are trying to piggy back on the old Rotisserie League concept, which people drafted teams then managed them through adds, drops and trades for an entire season. It was the simulation of being a team owner/general manager. However, the daily fantasy games are purely one and done roster set ups, like predicting the finish order of a horse race. There is no skill once the roster is set. There is no gamesmanship. The only deciding factor is the accumulated unpredictable statistics of the players.

The New York Times reported that Nevada regulators ruled on October 14, 2015 that playing daily fantasy sports should be considered gambling, not a game of skill, and ordered websites like DraftKings and FanDuel to stop operating immediately in the state until the companies and their employees receive state gambling licenses. The sites disagreed but withdrew accepting players from Nevada.

It is perhaps the most significant setback yet for a booming, unregulated industry that has spent the past month in the midst of allegations that have prompted federal and state investigations into whether its employees, armed with inside information, exploited paying customers. DraftKings and FanDuel, each valued at more than $1 billion, have operated under an alleged exemption to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, which outlawed online poker and sports betting. Five states have prohibited them from operating, but none are as powerful and influential as Nevada, which has long been a bastion of legal gambling, operates under strict regulation, and has the nation's only active sports betting.

“The Nevada Gaming Commission concluded that daily fantasy is gambling and needs to be licensed here,” said David Gzesh, a Nevada lawyer specializing in gambling and sports law. “It should give other states pause because if it's perceived as sports gambling here, no other state can offer it when it violates federal law.”

Nevada also seemingly has the most to lose; its casinos have lacked the ability to stretch across state lines on the Internet, as daily fantasy sites have, to attract a wider, younger audience. “It's self-serving, but that is what the agency is designed to do - - - ensure an environment where the state's licensed operators have the best chance of success, and part of that mission is to address forms of alternative gambling that fall outside the umbrella of regulation,” said Chris Grove, who writes the blog Legal Sports Report.

In any business where there are millions of dollars exchanging hands, there is a chance for corruption. And it is ironic that major US sports leagues have partnered with the daily fantasy sites even though the leagues have been steadfast against sports book wagers on their games.

The New York attorney general began an inquiry into the prospect that employees of daily fantasy football sites have won lucrative payouts based on inside information not available to the public, asking two leading companies, DraftKings and FanDuel, for a range of internal data and details on how they prevent fraud. Word of the inquiry came as the revelation that DraftKings and FanDuel allegedly allowed their employees - - - many with information not available to customers - - - to play at each otherÕs sites and win large amounts of money continued to rattle the sports world.

Some of the industry's primary sponsors raised questions or distanced themselves from lucrative advertising and sponsorship deals. Both fantasy companies told The New York Times that they had temporarily prohibited their employees from playing in money games. FanDuel announced that it was permanently barring its employees from playing daily fantasy games on any site, and was prohibiting employees of other companies from playing on its site.

Major League Baseball, which owns a stake in DraftKings and has a sponsorship deal with it, said in a statement that it had a policy that “prohibits its own players and employees from participating in fantasy baseball games where money or something of value is at stake, and did not know that the situation was different at DraftKings.”

“We have reached out and discussed this matter with them,” it said.

ESPN reduced its association with DraftKings as well. On the network's Outside the Lines show, the host, Bob Ley, announced that while the network will continue to air regular advertisements for the daily fantasy sites, it will no longer run individual segments sponsored by the sites.

The NFL, which recently struck a three-year deal with DraftKings to become a partner of the league's International Series in Britain, declined to comment. The attorney general's move may shed light on the inner workings of the sites, which charge a fee and allow participants to build rosters of hypothetical teams and score points against hundreds of competitors based on the actual performance of players. The sites say payouts can reach $2 million. In a letter to both companies, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman demanded the names, job titles and descriptions of any employees who aggregate and compile a wide range of data that perhaps could be used to gain a personal advantage - - - including ownership percentages and pricing algorithms.

The New York state investigation could deal with various potential charges, including fraud. The federal government's investigation will focus on any criminal liability.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has begun an inquiry into the practices of the daily fantasy sports websites after players of the games and lawmakers made allegations of predatory tactics and questioned the use of insider information, according to fantasy players who said they had been contacted by investigators. The FBI began contacting several prominent competitors in the contests, the players said, shortly after an employee of DraftKings, one of the two most prominent daily fantasy companies, admitted to inadvertently releasing data before lineups for the start of the third week of NFL games were locked in. The employee, a midlevel content manager, then won $350,000 at a rival site, although DraftKings said he did not have an advantage.

The players said that they were interviewed by agents from the bureau's Boston office, who seemed to focus primarily on DraftKings, a Boston-based company. They also said that agents were examining whether the site encouraged and accepted deposits and bets from states where the contests were prohibited. The information under review includes a post by Jon Aguiar, an executive in charge of developing high-volume fantasy players, on a public thread informing players how to deposit funds and play in contests in states and countries where the games are prohibited.

The daily fantasy sites, worth billions of dollars on paper because of a surge of investors, have exploded in popularity and this season have blanketed football game broadcasts with ubiquitous advertisements to lure more participants. Players pay an entry fee, build virtual rosters of players from actual teams and win prizes, from $22 to $2 million, based on the performance of the chosen players in real games. Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association, along with networks such as NBC, Comcast and Fox and the team owners Robert K. Kraft of the New England Patriots and Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys, are among the investors in the sites. The FBI agents also wanted to know whether employees of DraftKings passed on proprietary information or preyed on fantasy players in contests, the players said. It was unclear how far the investigation had proceeded as the FBI declines to comment on pending investigations.

The Wall St Journal reported the US Justice Department is probing whether the business model of daily fantasy-sports operators violates federal law, according to people familiar with the matter. The probe is in the preliminary stage, two people said. It is part of an ongoing discussion within the Justice Department about the legality of daily fantasy sites. Congress in 2006 prohibited financial companies from transferring money to online gambling sites and several were shut down. But so-called games of skill were exempted. Fantasy sports sites have claimed to operate under that exemption. So-called daily fantasy sites like DraftKings and FanDuel, Inc. did not become popular until after the law was enacted. The Justice Department is trying to determine whether daily fantasy games are a form of gambling that falls outside the purview of the exemption.

The legal issue is rooted in the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Act, which largely curtailed the ability of online gambling sites to operate for financial gain. The act predates the emergence of daily fantasy sites like FanDuel and DraftKings, however, which were created in 2009 and 2012, respectively. These sites argue that they operate as “games of skill,” which, in contrast to “games of chance,” do not constitute illegal gambling. The federal probe focuses on the distinction between these two types of games. If fantasy sports sites are discovered to emphasize chance more heavily than skill, they may be subject to federal regulation or prohibition. This law was used to shut down Internet poker sites, even in states where poker is considered a game of skill. The difficulty in examining the issue is compounded by the fact that multiple states have different legal definitions of gambling. In some states, authorities rule sites to be legal if the majority of the game is based on skill. In others, the game must rely completely on skill, allowing no element of chance whatsoever. In contrast to older forms of fantasy sports, where players draft one team for the length of the season, daily fantasy sports games allow players to choose new athletes and enter competitions on a daily or weekly basis.

But Congress may act before the investigations are completed. Lawmakers have been intensifying calls for federal regulation and inquiries into the industry. In Washington, Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, called on the panel to examine “whether permitting a multibillion-dollar industry to police itself serves the best interests of the American people.”

Senator Robert Menendez and Representative Frank Pallone Jr., Democrats of New Jersey, reiterated their calls on the Federal Trade Commission to implement safeguards and ensure a fair playing field. And Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, formally called for a federal investigation into any deceptive or fraudulent practices at daily fantasy sports leagues. “Consumers had no foreseeable knowledge that these companies were facilitating employees' use of proprietary data to provide themselves with an advantage when playing users on their rival site,” Blumenthal said in a letter to the Justice Department and the FTC. “If employees are using insider information to unfairly advantage themselves over others, this may constitute fraud regardless of any other federal or state gambling statutes.”

So Congress could hold hearings and/or clarify the skill exemption to the Internet gambling prohibition laws to essentially wipe out the daily fantasy sites. In addition, the 2006 federal act did not revoke any other federal or state gambling laws. So whether fantasy sports sites will survive these various investigations is a crap shoot.

 

PINDERMEDIA.COM STORE!

PRICES TO SUBJECT TO CHANGE

PLEASE REVIEW E-STORE SITE FOR CURRENT SALES & CURRENT STYLES

THE PINDERMEDIA STORE IS FULL OF FUN T-SHIRTS

CLOTHES, HATS AND OTHER ITEMS.

CHECK OUT THE STORE FOR ITEMS

ON SALE NOW!

SUPPORT cyberbarf

VISIT THE CYBERBARF STORE!

Prices and styles may vary depending on sales, allotments, inventory.

BASEBALL ANALYSIS

FROM A FAN'S PERSPECTIVE

THE STEALTH GM

BACK IN BLACK WITH THIS CLASSIC CYBERBARF T-SHIRT!

SKIREALNEWS.COM

FEATURING:

THE REAL NEWS

IMPACT

EDITORIAL CARTOONS

WRIGLEYVILLE WAR

POLITICS

ENDORPHIN RUSH

THE DARK ABYSS

RANDOM ELECTRONS

SPECIALS

FEATURING:

THE REAL NEWS ARCHIVES

CARTOONS

MADAME'S TEA HOUSE

THE BAR

EXPLORE THE CITY SCAPE

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

SURPRISES

ESTORE

SPECIALS

NEW THEORIES AND CHARACTER ESSAYS

INCLUDING 10 YEAR ANNIVERSARY ARTICLES

---

 

cyberbarf

THE STEAM PUNK SPECIAL EDITION featured new Music from Chicago Ski & the (audio) Real News:

Steampunk

(mp3/4:14 length)

 

EXAMINING THE NET

WAY OF LIFE

cyberbarf™

distributed by pindermedia.com, inc.

---