It's News to Me

We saw a story from The Associated Press today that seemed ridiculous at first, but upon further inspection is not actually as cool as we had thought.

The claim: Marijuana vending machines in Los Angeles.

Our thoughts: What!? How and where can we get some of this? Just kidding, but seriously, every college student in the country would probably do a double take when they saw the words "marijuana vending machine."

However, when we got up off the floor and actually read the story, we realized that these machines are intended for those who need marijuana for medicinal purposes, not for those just looking for some fun.

According to the story, "Patients suffering from chronic pain, loss of appetite and other ailments that marijuana is said to alleviate can get their pot with a dose of convenience at the Herbal Nutrition Center, where a large machine will dole out the drug around the clock."

Read -- Casual stoners need not apply.

The inventor and owner of the machines, Vincent Mehdizadeh, said the machines were convenient, cheap, safe and anonymous.

The story said that in order to use the machines, one must obtain an ID card authorizing use of the machines. The machine also requires fingerprint identification of anyone trying to use it.

The machine is also protected by a sliding fence.

According to the story, "Mehdizadeh says any user approved for medical marijuana and registered in a computer database at his dispensaries can pre-purchase the drug and then use the machine to pick up.

"The process provides convenience and privacy for users who may otherwise feel uncomfortable about buying marijuana, Mehdizadeh said."

The story also says that the vending machine is available only during business hours and that it provides speedy service to patients.

"It helps a lot of patients who are in a lot of pain and don't want to wait around to get help," Robert Schwartz, a dispensary employee said. "It's been working out great."

Mehdizadeh said he sought the advice of doctors, and decided to limit the amount of marijuana per user to an ounce per week. Each purchase from the machine yields 1/8th or 2/8th of an ounce. By eliminating a vendor behind the counter, he said, the machine offers users lower drug prices. The 1/8th ounce packet would cost about $40 , $20 lower than the average price at other dispensaries.

A spokesman for a marijuana advocacy group said the machine also benefits dispensary owners.

"It limits the number of workers in the store in the event of a raid, and it'll make it harder for theft," said Nathan Sands, of The Compassionate Coalition.

A particularly disturbing piece of news was revealed yesterday: Four paintings with an estimated value of $162.3 million were stolen from a Switzerland museum. This is disturbing neither because of the horrible monetary damage done to the museum, nor the potential loss of important cultural heritage. It can only be described as such because of the terribly blase style of the three thieves, and the subsequent description by police of the robbery as "spectacular."

Spectacular? Police reports say the black-clad robbers walked into the museum, subdued the guards with a pistol and grabbed the four paintings. They then simply walked out the front door of the museum, loaded the paintings into a white van and drove away.

Spectacular? This robbery had all the grace and elegance of your typical Minit-Mart stick-up, right down to the costumes and getaway car. If there's anything Danny Ocean and the rest of Hollywood's professional thieves have taught us, it's that robbing a museum should not be this easy.

Here's how it should've gone down: First, the leader of the group would need to assemble a crack team encompassing every specialization necessary for a high-profile heist. This would include a smooth-talking aristocrat type (a la Pierce Brosnan in the Thomas Crown Affair or that French guy who did the laser dance in Ocean's Twelve), a bad-ass enforcer type with fists of iron, an awkward tech guy to subvert the museum's security system, a whiskey-soaked veteran who gets pulled back into "the game" but growls at least three or four times that this is his last job, and Mark Wahlberg.

Then, they would have to run surveillance on the museum for at least six months until each team member had the precise schedule of the museum security detail memorized. Then, they would call in a favor to a shady arms dealer to acquire absurd amounts of weapons that never really get used, along with one really cool weapon which comes in handy (not just one pistol like those real life jokers).

Next, they would find an extremely small window of opportunity during which it would be possible to steal the paintings. Despite being told multiple times that there was no room for error, they would pull it off flawlessly in the face of at least a dozen major oversights, errors or unforeseeable calamities.

After acquiring said paintings, they would most certainly not load them into an inconspicuous white van and cruise off without pursuit. Instead, they would load the paintings into any one of the following vehicles: a Mini Cooper, a speedboat, a helicopter, a prototypical single man jet hijacked from a military installation or a hot air balloon. More than likely, though, they would somehow employ all of the above in a desperate attempt to confuse law enforcement.

Nonetheless, a savvy detective with a shady past would track them down and incur more than the paintings are actually worth in property damage while pursuing the thieves.

Ultimately, Mark Wahlberg would confront the detective and convince him to let them go "for old time's sake."

So what have we learned from all this? Mostly, that real life crime is just disappointing, not sexy or debonair in any way. To satisfy the craving for cooler thieves, we'll just have to wait for the inevitable Ocean's 25, The Brazillian Job or The Thomas Crown Affair Two.

Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

If the common quote can be taken at face value, many of the nation's universities have their fair share of retarded people.

The proof? A Web site, JuicyCampus.com, which recently launched a Penn State section. The site allows users to post so-called "juicy" rumors -- completely anonymously, the site promises -- about people, groups or events on campus.

Typical post titles from the Penn State section read "Red Headed Dance Team Slut," or "NAKED GIRL!" The threads contain discussions on everything from who's anorexic to who's a slut, allege things ranging from chlamydia to necrophilia, and deal with figures such as football players and campus leaders.

Surely, you must be thinking, people can't actually take this site seriously. Surprisingly, you'd be wrong. One post, eloquently titled "this is crap," reads:

"Time to grow up, children. This is middle school mentality at its best. You're in college, boys and girls. Start acting like adults and think about what you're doing to your fellow human beings. It's called empathy. got any?"

According to an Associated Press story about JuicyCampus, the student government at Pepperdine University voted to ban the site, and a Facebook group from Loyola Marymount called "Ban Juicycampus!!!!" has garnered 850 members.

That is what makes this site an instant classic. This site has zero credibility. 90 percent of the posts are intended specifically to get a rise out of people, and they're effective more often than not.

Everyone who looks at the site has to realize this in an instant, yet the only thing keeping it going are the sometimes two-paragraph-long pleas for those vicious gossips to have mercy.

Now, these parts of the site are all pretty hilarious, but we're still torn between loving and hating this site, though.

The site was obviously designed for people to post slanderous and downright untrue material, despite its annoying assertions that everything on there is at least plausible.

For example, its terms of use, "require users to agree not to post anything that is defamatory, libelous, etc.," according the site's official blog. However, the blog goes on to read that since JuicyCampus has no way to verify whether something on their site is true or not, they won't remove anything with anything less than a court's request.

The site just doesn't do a good enough job selling itself as an honest-to-goodness rumors source. Perhaps if it at least removed the most ridiculously untrue posts -- I'm thinking necrophilia accusations -- it would give the site enough credibility that it wouldn't require the visitor to completely suspend all mental activity to believe a single word written on it.

As JuicyCampus seems to be, it's just a ridiculous cesspool of Internet users looking for a cheap laugh by getting a rise out of some dumb college students, and that can only be funny for so long.

Yesterday, Reuters reported that an official in Mexico is pushing a law that would fine people for breaking off an engagement, with the money going to the jilted fiancee. This proposal got us thinking: what other social blunders should people have to reimburse each other for? The article doesn't put a dollar amount on the breaking of an engagement, but since we're not actually legislating here, we'll do that too.

Starting small, how about the jerk who takes up both armrests at a movie theater? This guy knows he's annoying people on both sides of him and he just ignores it, so it's definitely worthy of a fine. Amount: $5

On about the same level, spilling something on a stranger while walking down the street. A double fine will be levied for causing them to drop their phone. On a related note, the fine would be nullified if the person bumped into is walking on the wrong side of the sidewalk. Honestly, if such a malcontent someone refuses to move over, they deserve to have their arm broken in addition to their phone. Amount: $5

Leaving a voicemail that simply says some variant of, "Hey, call me back," is also unacceptable if you're calling someone who has your number. If they see you called, then they'll call you back; it's that simple. Amount: $5

Leaving an empty toilet paper roll in a restroom is another gaffe that we consider fine-worthy. In a public restroom, this fine would fall on the janitor, but in someone's house, it would cost the last person who used it -- at triple. Being reduced to looking around for spare toilet paper, tissues or even a label you can peel off a shampoo bottle while stranded hopelessly on the toilet is an experience no man or woman should ever have to suffer. Not that that's ever happened to us. Amount: $10

Talking on your cell phone in a public place is another fine-worthy offense. Not much is more annoying than hearing some idiot talk about how he/she, "Got, like, totally wasted and puked everywhere," on the bus/in the movie theater/anywhere. There would have to be some sort of chart plotting decibels against location to determine the fine amount. For example, screaming into your phone in a hospital nursery would be a pretty high fine, while whispering into it in a McDonald's would hardly be anything at all. Amount: Variable

Two words: close parkers. If you're on the line, or taking up two spaces even, you need to take the few seconds to back up and pull back in. Or, if this particular law is passed, pay the fine. Amount: $20

Sure, these aren't huge fines, but if they were enacted it might go a long way toward cutting down annoying behaviors. Of course, they could more than make up for themselves with the inherent annoyance of ridiculous laws, but that's something we're willing to risk.