<![CDATA[Gizmodo: conspiracy theory]]> http://tags.gizmodo.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/gizmodo.com.png <![CDATA[Gizmodo: conspiracy theory]]> http://gizmodo.com/tag/conspiracytheory http://gizmodo.com/tag/conspiracytheory <![CDATA[Was Steve Wozniak Unfairly Eliminated From Dancing With the Stars?]]> One of our more educated readers has chimed in on The Woz's Dancing With the Stars elimination. If he's right, let the Internet masses descend on ABC with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns.

Says Giz reader (and dancer?) Dallas in an email to Gizmodo from this morning:

I just watched the [Woz] episode tonight and David Allen Grier and his partner Kym did not dance a Lindy Hop. He got a complete bye! He danced a Charleston. The entire routine there was not a single swing out. That was not a Lindy Hop at all! He should not have received scores nearly as high as he did, because he did not dance the correct routine.

This is the Charleston
This is a correct Lindy Hop

Watch the episode for yourself. Count how many swing outs or triple steps (the "and 8" 's) you can see. There are ZERO! The Judges would have known the difference between a Charleston and a Lindy Hop. That was no Lindy Hop. Steve Woz was screwed off of Dancing with the Stars.

Woz was screwed.

Is he right? Can any of you geeks dance? Personally, when I dance at the clubs people tend to speak in tongues and go blind, so I have no idea if this is legit or not. But I do know I love The Woz, and I agree with Blam that his dancing was "a giant (but rapidly decreasing in weight, mind you) bundle of circuit board, Segway riding, love bouncing around with the enthusiasm of a child on two barely-functioning legs" awesomeness.

Of course, as any DWTS aficionado knows, the three judges' scores are only a portion of the tally that decides a dancer's fate each week. However, if the audience vote was close, and it was the judges' score that decided Woz's fate, well... I think you all know what to do.

]]>
http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5199199&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Microsoft Prohibits "Tibet" in Hotmail Addresses, But It's Not What You Are Thinking]]> David Gallagher at the New York Times had to do some rumor control when a reader wrote accusing Microsoft of prohibiting the word "Tibet" in Hotmail addresses to appease the Chinese government. No "freetibet@hotmail.com", no "tibetsmellsofwetmonks@hotmail.com", no "ilovetibet@hotmail.com." Is this another Chinese-Microsoft evil conspiracy? While there are some of those going on between China and companies like Microsoft, Google, or Yahoo, this is not the case.

As David discovered, it turns out that you can't register any name with the word "tib" on them, not just Tibet. Microsoft gave him an explanation for this: they wanted to protect customers of the TIB Bank in Florida, so they can't receive a message from "tib-support@hotmail.com" asking for their bank account passwords. As he was able to test, if you try to use any other bank name in the address, it won't work. Mystery solved! [NYT]

]]>
http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5034645&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[California Bans Mandatory Subdermal RFID Tagging]]> Paranoid California readers, you can now relax thanks to Senate Bill 362. No longer can employers require you and your coworkers to have RFID chips embedded in your skin. If they are caught doing so the State of California will slap them with an initial $10,000 fine, followed by a subsequent $1,000 fine for each day the subdermal chip stays implanted. Although you'd have to know about the chip to report them, right? And if your company is the type to implant RFID chips in their employees, wouldn't it be feasible for them to secretly implant them? Oh great, new things to worry about. [Ars Technica]

]]>
http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=296276&view=rss&microfeed=true