The Case of the Materializing Hair

I found a hair.

Woody Allen starts his hysterical routine about a moose this way: 
"I shot a moose."


I carried my laptop from the office to the living room. A few minutes later, there was a hair on it. Normally this wouldn't be an issue, as the people and the (former) pets had lots of it. There are no more pets but there is obviously still hair. Also, I cannot rule out that an elephant has been through the place, dropping off one small hair on my laptop, just because I didn't see it.

Upon examination, the hair was not human in origin. How do I know this? Technically I don't, but I've seen enough hair (usually in the vacuum) to tell the difference. As yet, I haven't been called to testify in court as an Expert Hair Witness. This is a shame, as they get the Big Bucks.

How does one describe a hair? I might as well sing an aria about avoiding super glue as a lubricant to a deaf person.

Ok, maybe not that bad....
Human hair is round, more or less. This was flat. Very flat. Calista Flockhart flat. It also had a pointed tip, like a sword, in case its owner needed to defend himself with a pointed hair. Down at the bottom, it had a lot of little 'spikes' or feathering. It was stiff. On this basis, I assume it isn't human. As it is not currently attached to its former owner, I'm at a bit of a loss. I'm also at a bit of a loss as to how it got there. It doesn't look particularly aerodynamic and seems like it wouldn't be blown around like a human hair. I've never seen one before, and hair doesn't usually materialize on my laptop unless it comes directly from me. If this came from me, it wasn't there when I moved the laptop.

Since this is a completely minor and bizarre matter, I needed to follow it up post haste, using all of my attention (such as it is) and whatever resources I could bring to bear on the matter. I got my top people on it, with emails going right out to The President's Committee on Hair Identification, as well as England's Ministry of Hair That Feathers a Bit Near the Bottom. While I waited for inspiration and emails, I did what most humans on the planet do: no, not nap.. I went to the internet.

What kind of query do you put into a search engine for hair? The results are not going to be pretty regardless. I used "hair identification," which provided 1,237 links to finding out what type of hair you have on your head, so you can style and care for it properly. Later today, I'll start seeing ads for hair care products while I surf, and wonder why.

One interesting link was how to figure out whether it's human or animal.
This turned out to be a scholarly discussion on putting the found hair next to a known people or animal hair and seeing if it looks the same. If I say I already thought about this, will I be eligible for a Nobel Prize?

The next link had some real promise: it was from the FBI's Forensic Science Communications, entitled Microscopy of Hair Part II: A Practical Guide and Manual for Animal Hairs. You can tell this is reliable information because it has a lot of words in the title, even though the largest word only has four syllables. They start by examining hairs under a microscope, noting cells, and comparing. Nowhere does it mention shape or deal with the hair outside the cells. This is Real Science<tm> and I'm excited that I'll find an answer, even if the Ministry of Hair That Feathers a Bit Near the Bottom fails to get back to me.

Astute observers will astutely observe that I do not have a microscope. I have a telescope, which is close, right? Same basic principle... it makes things bigger... Since the telescope will require the assistance of a Telescope Detector and a dump truck to find, I continued on. There's a small bit on what could be feathering, but naturally is called coronal scales or spinous scales. I think this is a dead end, as the picture of the Free-Tailed Bat hair didn't bear any resemblance.  Nor did mink, ginger, or ovoid bodies in cattle/human/canine hair. Fortunately the next section, "Animal Versus Human Hairs" held promise.

Animal hairs are grouped into three different types (guard, wool, tactile, and nose) but all any pet owner knows is the type that fouls the vacuum, requiring small scissors and an intricate surgery that run 37 minutes.

I'm going to seriously foul up Real Science<tm> here and assume that it did not belong to the groups covered, those being Deer Family and Antelope, White Tailed and Mule deer, Caribou, and Woody Allen's Moose. Also out were rabbit, seal, mink, muskrat, chinchilla, raccoon, and red fox (although I loved him in Sanford and Son). To be honest, the closest I saw was beaver. There are no beaver in the area because Beaver College had to change its name. When you went to look it up online, 'beaver' produced all kinds of interesting results. Ruling out these results contaminates the science. Who says a giraffe didn't walk past the laptop and deposit the hair in question? It's a possibility, as the living room ceiling is higher than the office.

The article concludes with three items, which I will paraphrase:

1. if the questionable hair looks like a known hair, you can conclude that it looks like your known hair
2. If the questionable hair doesn't look like a known hair, you can't say it's the same species as the known hair (unless it came from a Kardashian).
3. if the questionable hair looks like a known hair in some places but doesn't in other places, it can possibly be from Kanye, which is as close to a Kardashian as you'd ever care to be.

To no one's surprise, the FBI was of no help at all.

I did learn that it's best not to blow dry my type of hair and that you can wholesale human hair from China. Body parts too, as I hear it.

An article called Alopecia: Types of Hair Loss and How to Identify Them was also of no assistance. Just change the name to MY FUCKING HAIR'S FALLING OUT!!!  

Not sure How to tell if Brazilian hair is real is helpful either, but I'll check with my Portuguese friend (Brazil speaks Portuguese, so their hair is related).

What have we learned?

1. Nothing
2. some investigations should not be performed at work
3. when Mom drops off some fresh chocolate buttercream icing, it's best to wait until it gets close to room temperature before shoveling the entire vat into my mouth
4. I shouldn't display such enthusiasm for bizarre events
5. for the sake of my readers, I shouldn't write about my enthusiasm.
6. Whether it's animal hair or those little bugs you found on your mattress, do the same thing: put it in a sealed container for the professionals to identify. You don't have time in your life for this shit.

• Rushing to take control, under pretext of censorship, the British banned internet porn for children. Yeah, right.. it turns out that millions of porn videos are exempt via their own regulations. But let's face it - this isn't just about porn. They're keeping the UK safe. From what, we're not sure... why not terrorism? If people see porn, the terrorists win.

The amount of cell phone tracking is draconian - we can all agree. Google and Apple, bless them, will let you know what they know about you. For Google, log into your account. For Apple, go to their 'privacy portal'. They got their naming conventions from DC (Patriot Act anyone?).

• This week's best headline: "What if Hitler had Access to my Facebook Data"

A recent Supreme Court case may have serious implications for Google, Twitter, YouTube, and other social media.  The case will decide if a private operator of a public access network can be government-regulated.

I'm no Constitutional scholar, but that never stopped me before...

Although the case is more intricate, this could get ugly. For example, the First Amendment states that the government may not regulate speech or establish religion.... it does not apply to private businesses. As it stands, Faceyspaces, Google, etc, are not government businesses - they're private, hence are not subject to this amendment. That's how it is, according to #1A. The case wants to allow regulation by declaring these companies 'state actors'. In other words, they want to add (these) private companies to their loophole. Tricky.

Speaking not as a libertarian, I'd love to see these companies forced to eat their own crap. Let's face it: if I say things these companies don't agree with, I'm out the door too, although not as fast as the right. To be clear, censorship shouldn't travel in any direction. But according to the Constitution, they can't be controlled right now, so that's the way we have to go. Using the courts to decide is also the way to go (provided they agree with my interpretation).

• Need to make some quick cash?  Tell Justin Bieber you'll give $1,000 to his favorite charity every time he says "I dig chicks with green hair." Then bet the National Star Enquirer five million that you can turn tens of thousands of kids' hair green overnight, without saying or doing a single thing (plus a signed Bieber 8x10 to their favorite charity).

New Yorkers: you're famous for your rulers (NYPD) obtaining serious technology to use on you. proposed is the POST Act, which will force transparency. Keep in mind that right now, shotgun microphones, video surveillance, face recognition and automatic license plate readers are in place (and that's the stuff we know about). Do you feel protected now? Do you feel surveilled everywhere but your shower? Get with your reps and urge them to support POST. Naturally the act has no teeth, but it's a start.