sometimes, you run into trolls. you can't turn a troll into a nontroll. you can't force an ogre to give you a glowing reference. stop trying to think you can. you deserve it, but you can't get it
seems unfair after all you've done for them? it is unfair. nobody said life was always honey and milk. deal with it, accept the raw deal, move on
the question is, is conflict settled in a theatre of war, or a courtroom?
you don't have to be saddened by man's warlike tendencies. you can be heartened that the issues that make men go to war can move men to litigate instead
progress really does lessen war. it seems like modern times means more war, but if you compare the big headline grabbing wars to the sort of low scale internecine conflicts that don't grab headlines in the interim, we are actually getting less warlike over time. the only arena where war is still real is on the international stage. meanwhile, you're not engaging in gunfights with your neighbors. which at one time was the status quo, and in many places, still is
so yes, as we get more civilized, we engage in less war. we still have conflicts, but instead of shooting our neighbors, we call them names on the internet
even these fancy quantum entanglement set ups, spooky action at a distance: they barely have the things working and there are already theoreticians talking about decoding that communication
if you want privacy, stay off the internet
if you want to use the internet, be prepared to have a sliver of doubt about all of your communications
you don't get communication on a network of wires outside your control that is private
where the most pedestrian news is given the most ridiculous fear-driven spin, made front page in breathless write up, and a bunch of yammering legal ignorants wlll ape right along
and then these same people will ridicule stereotypes outside their domain who supposedly fall for propaganda and hysteria all the time
take a look in the mirror friend
no, slashdot, this case does not set the precedent you believe it does
CONTEXT. its a magical concept. consider it some time
i use verizon's evdo to surf the web on my laptop when on metronorth trains going up and down the hudson river. the connection is usually good, but every once in awhile, the connection would completely die, even though my phone was indicating i had a good signal. i started noticing this would happen when there was some yacht out on the hudson nearby. i thought perhaps my phone was roaming over to some cell transponder on the yacht?
or the "freedom" of choice offered you by a eu bureaucrat (none)
the only freedom is that which the individual freely chooses. as such, there is no campaign that can "educate" people (ie, indoctrinate), as this is just another imposition of a "freedom" from an outside entity with a its own agenda
if you communicate on a network, your communications are not private
simple as that
sure, you can do various obfuscating measures, but essentially, you are placing your trust in a communcation network, and all sorts of things can be spoofed and spied upon
the only way to communicate with someone privately is to get on a plane, fly to them, and go walk on a beach with them (so the crashing surf drowns out your conversation over any appreciable distance)
any other means of communication, ie, any means of communication where you are not in the same room as the person you are talking to, is philosphically immune to the notion of privacy
that's why i find absurd a lot of the indignation you at the government spying on you. sure, you can make laws that spell out in bold 72 pt font written in the blood of a virgin that any government agency found to be spying on a private citizen will be shut down and fed into a woodchipper. ok, so what? why do people think this matters? why do you think a law will rpotect your privacy on a system that is essentially a bunch of nodes beyond your control, o even beyond your ability to fully perceive what teh ehll those nodes are really doing?
the network is essentially not private. irreducibly not private. so arguing about the government spying on you or not is moot: you've already given up your privacy the moment you hit send on that email, or hit that form button that webpage. all sorts of third parties can be spying on you. why do think some law will protect you from that?
the internet is philosophically immune to the notion of privacy. meet the person in person, or give up your privacy. there is no third choice
October 17, 2008 Today I write not to gloat. Given the pain that nearly everyone is experiencing, that would be entirely inappropriate. Nor am I writing to make further predictions, as most of my forecasts in previous letters have unfolded or are in the process of unfolding. Instead, I am writing to say good-bye.
Recently, on the front page of Section C of the Wall Street Journal, a hedge fund manager who was also closing up shop (a $300 million fund), was quoted as saying, "What I have learned about the hedge fund business is that I hate it." I could not agree more with that statement. I was in this game for the money. The low hanging fruit, i.e. idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking. These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government. All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy, only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades. God bless America.
There are far too many people for me to sincerely thank for my success. However, I do not want to sound like a Hollywood actor accepting an award. The money was reward enough. Furthermore, the endless list of those deserving thanks know who they are.
I will no longer manage money for other people or institutions. I have enough of my own wealth to manage. Some people, who think they have arrived at a reasonable estimate of my net worth, might be surprised that I would call it quits with such a small war chest. That is fine; I am content with my rewards. Moreover, I will let others try to amass nine, ten or eleven figure net worths. Meanwhile, their lives suck. Appointments back to back, booked solid for the next three months, they look forward to their two week vacation in January during which they will likely be glued to their Blackberries or other such devices. What is the point? They will all be forgotten in fifty years anyway. Steve Balmer, Steven Cohen, and Larry Ellison will all be forgotten. I do not understand the legacy thing. Nearly everyone will be forgotten. Give up on leaving your mark. Throw the Blackberry away and enjoy life.
So this is it. With all due respect, I am dropping out. Please do not expect any type of reply to emails or voicemails within normal time frames or at all. Andy Springer and his company will be handling the dissolution of the fund. And don't worry about my employees, they were always employed by Mr. Springer's company and only one (who has been well-rewarded) will lose his job.
I have no interest in any deals in which anyone would like me to participate. I truly do not have a strong opinion about any market right now, other than to say that things will continue to get worse for some time, probably years. I am content sitting on the sidelines and waiting. After all, sitting and waiting is how we made money from the subprime debacle. I now have time to repair my health, which was destroyed by the stress I layered onto myself over the past two years, as well as my entire life - where I had to compete for spaces in universities and graduate schools, jobs and assets under management - with those who had all the advantages (rich parents) that I did not. May meritocracy be part of a new form of government, which needs to be established.
On the issue of the U.S. Government, I would like to make a modest proposal. First, I point out the obvious flaws, whereby legislation was repeatedly brought forth to Congress over the past eight years, which would have reigned in the predatory lending practices of now mostly defunct institutions. These institutions regularly filled the coffers of both parties in return for voting down all of th
if he believes he has a minority opinion, but his opinion is actually majority, he is depriving himself and his fellow citizens of the energy needed to effect the change he wants
the point being: who cares if your opinion is pure populist, or esoteric and rare, or anything in between. you fight for what you bleieve in, be damned what anyone else thinks. any other approach to how to value your own opinions is self-defeating stupidity
your government, as a citizen of a western democracy, is an extension of your will
it is not some alien entity come to suck you of your freedom just for the fun of it
i now await my lecture about how western governments are driven by the media, or the rich, or corporations
blah blah blah
such rationalizations are called learned helplessness, in which you indoctrinate yourself into your own slavehood
your government is clearly an extension of the popular will. if you don't believe that, you ARE a slave, made of your own broken thinking. the chains on your mind are made by yourself
don't like an aspect of your governments policies? agitate for change. if your message finds resonance amongst much of your fellow citizens, congratulations: you represent the best of democracy
or whine by yourself about how helpless you are. your own, self-created helplessness
the job of the presidency, believe it or not, is to govern the people. committed partisans meanwhile, from the right and the left, see nothing in the presidency except the ultimate bully pulpit in which to engage in partisan warfare
so obama is choosing the high road, he is letting past indiscretions slide, and he is focusing on uniting the american people rather than engaging in the same tired disgusting internecine warfare, plenty of which you see in other comments in this thread, both those aimed at republicans, and those aimed at obama
basically, fuck you you fucking partisans, from the right, and the left. please choke on your own bile. its all we see coming from your mouths anyway. nothing positive. nothing aimed at inclusiveness and uniting. just words aimed at dividing along tired typical stereotypical ideological divides
i'm glad obama is choosing not to sink to your pathetic blind level, and focus on actually governing the people, which is what he has to do, rather than feed into your pathetic drama queen soap operas
there is an aspect of american political life which is so blind, so braindead, so kneejerk "defend everything from the right, attack everything from the left", or visa versa, that there is nothing you add at ALL of any value, to any discussion. just please, shut the fuck up, blind partisans of the left, blind partisans of the right. and that includes large does of the comments in this thread: SHUT THE FUCK UP. you don't help, and you are extremely tired and tedious to all who hear your typical braindead words. say something positive and inclusive with those on the other side of the aisle, OR SAY NOTHING AT ALL
Pursuant to 18 USC 2257, all persons who appear in any visual depiction of "sexually explicit conduct" as defined in 18 USC 2256 at Adult FriendFinder were over the age of 18 at the time of the creation of such depictions. Records required to be maintained by this section are kept by the custodian of records:
David Bloom Custodian of Records Various, Inc. 220 Humboldt Ct, Sunnyvale, CA 94089
As provided by 18 USC 2257 (h) (2) (B) (iii), Adult FriendFinder's member information is not similarly maintained.
The date of production is 2/21/2009.
in other words, members of a dating site, which this ohio swingers site obviously is, are excluded, by law, from keeping track of these onerous records, since they are not selling photos, they are selling dating contacts. (aff mentions it has 2257 records, only because it does generate some adult content for the purposes of selling, separate form its dating area)
dating sites are excluded. user generated content is excluded. youtube, google, flickr, etc: excluded
they should outfit their zombie remote control insects with some sort of nanobot syringe that injects enemy troops with some sort of bioweapon, such as an intracellular parasite genetically attuned to weaken enemy troops and render them unable to fight
there's dozens of reasons why you don't want huge gets
in the link you just supplied me, the very first reply hints at some of those reasons
do some research. find out why cramming huge amounts of data into a get is plain wrong. i sent you a link before, read it to get started. (just don't "get" started;-)
this issue is well and above beyond a mark against ie. ie sucks for thousands of reasons. but this is not one of them
if ie never existed, for reasons of basic http architecture, you don't want to cram lots of data into a get
please drive ie6 usage into the basement, so i don't have to support it anymore. i don't want to have to refer to ActiveXObject, when I want an XMLHttpRequest, ever again, thank you
on a related note, i have a recent server log that indicates someone just visited my site in january with IE3
Slashdot Mirror
it will still go on, you can't legislate against moral repugnance, but at least it will drive it underground, and will happen less
sometimes, you run into trolls. you can't turn a troll into a nontroll. you can't force an ogre to give you a glowing reference. stop trying to think you can. you deserve it, but you can't get it
seems unfair after all you've done for them? it is unfair. nobody said life was always honey and milk. deal with it, accept the raw deal, move on
that is never going away
the question is, is conflict settled in a theatre of war, or a courtroom?
you don't have to be saddened by man's warlike tendencies. you can be heartened that the issues that make men go to war can move men to litigate instead
progress really does lessen war. it seems like modern times means more war, but if you compare the big headline grabbing wars to the sort of low scale internecine conflicts that don't grab headlines in the interim, we are actually getting less warlike over time. the only arena where war is still real is on the international stage. meanwhile, you're not engaging in gunfights with your neighbors. which at one time was the status quo, and in many places, still is
so yes, as we get more civilized, we engage in less war. we still have conflicts, but instead of shooting our neighbors, we call them names on the internet
outside your control
you can not be certain it is private
its simple as that friend
no technology gets around that concept
even these fancy quantum entanglement set ups, spooky action at a distance: they barely have the things working and there are already theoreticians talking about decoding that communication
if you want privacy, stay off the internet
if you want to use the internet, be prepared to have a sliver of doubt about all of your communications
you don't get communication on a network of wires outside your control that is private
its simply philosphically impossible
get used to it
where the most pedestrian news is given the most ridiculous fear-driven spin, made front page in breathless write up, and a bunch of yammering legal ignorants wlll ape right along
and then these same people will ridicule stereotypes outside their domain who supposedly fall for propaganda and hysteria all the time
take a look in the mirror friend
no, slashdot, this case does not set the precedent you believe it does
CONTEXT. its a magical concept. consider it some time
i use verizon's evdo to surf the web on my laptop when on metronorth trains going up and down the hudson river. the connection is usually good, but every once in awhile, the connection would completely die, even though my phone was indicating i had a good signal. i started noticing this would happen when there was some yacht out on the hudson nearby. i thought perhaps my phone was roaming over to some cell transponder on the yacht?
offered you by microsoft (none)
or the "freedom" of choice offered you by a eu bureaucrat (none)
the only freedom is that which the individual freely chooses. as such, there is no campaign that can "educate" people (ie, indoctrinate), as this is just another imposition of a "freedom" from an outside entity with a its own agenda
if you communicate on a network, your communications are not private
simple as that
sure, you can do various obfuscating measures, but essentially, you are placing your trust in a communcation network, and all sorts of things can be spoofed and spied upon
the only way to communicate with someone privately is to get on a plane, fly to them, and go walk on a beach with them (so the crashing surf drowns out your conversation over any appreciable distance)
any other means of communication, ie, any means of communication where you are not in the same room as the person you are talking to, is philosphically immune to the notion of privacy
that's why i find absurd a lot of the indignation you at the government spying on you. sure, you can make laws that spell out in bold 72 pt font written in the blood of a virgin that any government agency found to be spying on a private citizen will be shut down and fed into a woodchipper. ok, so what? why do people think this matters? why do you think a law will rpotect your privacy on a system that is essentially a bunch of nodes beyond your control, o even beyond your ability to fully perceive what teh ehll those nodes are really doing?
the network is essentially not private. irreducibly not private. so arguing about the government spying on you or not is moot: you've already given up your privacy the moment you hit send on that email, or hit that form button that webpage. all sorts of third parties can be spying on you. why do think some law will protect you from that?
the internet is philosophically immune to the notion of privacy. meet the person in person, or give up your privacy. there is no third choice
the popular will is the popular will is the popular will
what other opinion exists that is somehow more valid than that?
what point of view can stand in judgment of the popular will and call it wanting or lacking?
you say how can i celebrate mob rule. i ask you what else there is that is of any superior validity? according to who?
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/good-bye-from-a-hedge-fund-manager/
if he believes he has a minority opinion, but his opinion is actually majority, he is depriving himself and his fellow citizens of the energy needed to effect the change he wants
the point being: who cares if your opinion is pure populist, or esoteric and rare, or anything in between. you fight for what you bleieve in, be damned what anyone else thinks. any other approach to how to value your own opinions is self-defeating stupidity
as in, full of hysteria
your government, as a citizen of a western democracy, is an extension of your will
it is not some alien entity come to suck you of your freedom just for the fun of it
i now await my lecture about how western governments are driven by the media, or the rich, or corporations
blah blah blah
such rationalizations are called learned helplessness, in which you indoctrinate yourself into your own slavehood
your government is clearly an extension of the popular will. if you don't believe that, you ARE a slave, made of your own broken thinking. the chains on your mind are made by yourself
don't like an aspect of your governments policies? agitate for change. if your message finds resonance amongst much of your fellow citizens, congratulations: you represent the best of democracy
or whine by yourself about how helpless you are. your own, self-created helplessness
1. govern
2. engage in partisan vindictiveness
the job of the presidency, believe it or not, is to govern the people. committed partisans meanwhile, from the right and the left, see nothing in the presidency except the ultimate bully pulpit in which to engage in partisan warfare
so obama is choosing the high road, he is letting past indiscretions slide, and he is focusing on uniting the american people rather than engaging in the same tired disgusting internecine warfare, plenty of which you see in other comments in this thread, both those aimed at republicans, and those aimed at obama
basically, fuck you you fucking partisans, from the right, and the left. please choke on your own bile. its all we see coming from your mouths anyway. nothing positive. nothing aimed at inclusiveness and uniting. just words aimed at dividing along tired typical stereotypical ideological divides
i'm glad obama is choosing not to sink to your pathetic blind level, and focus on actually governing the people, which is what he has to do, rather than feed into your pathetic drama queen soap operas
there is an aspect of american political life which is so blind, so braindead, so kneejerk "defend everything from the right, attack everything from the left", or visa versa, that there is nothing you add at ALL of any value, to any discussion. just please, shut the fuck up, blind partisans of the left, blind partisans of the right. and that includes large does of the comments in this thread: SHUT THE FUCK UP. you don't help, and you are extremely tired and tedious to all who hear your typical braindead words. say something positive and inclusive with those on the other side of the aisle, OR SAY NOTHING AT ALL
http://adultfriendfinder.com/
if you are familiar with it, it has tons of salacious user generated content. and it is an extremely well-visited site
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/adultfriendfinder.com
Adultfriendfinder.com has a traffic rank of: 79
no one is tracking their 2257 info. if the american taliban had such a weapon in their hands, wouldn't they be prosecuting this site into oblivion?
aff says so itself:
http://adultfriendfinder.com/go/page/2257_notice.html
in other words, members of a dating site, which this ohio swingers site obviously is, are excluded, by law, from keeping track of these onerous records, since they are not selling photos, they are selling dating contacts. (aff mentions it has 2257 records, only because it does generate some adult content for the purposes of selling, separate form its dating area)
dating sites are excluded. user generated content is excluded. youtube, google, flickr, etc: excluded
so why is this even an issue?
all i can think is
<keanu reeves voice>whoa</keanu reeves voice>
only if she's super hot and can only say "multipass" in a heavy euro accent
they should outfit their zombie remote control insects with some sort of nanobot syringe that injects enemy troops with some sort of bioweapon, such as an intracellular parasite genetically attuned to weaken enemy troops and render them unable to fight
oh, wait...
<FORM Action="mailto:xyz" METHOD="POST">
there's dozens of reasons why you don't want huge gets
in the link you just supplied me, the very first reply hints at some of those reasons
do some research. find out why cramming huge amounts of data into a get is plain wrong. i sent you a link before, read it to get started. (just don't "get" started ;-)
this issue is well and above beyond a mark against ie. ie sucks for thousands of reasons. but this is not one of them
if ie never existed, for reasons of basic http architecture, you don't want to cram lots of data into a get
seriously, you need a new METHODology ;-)
is that biochemistry majors shouldn't code browsers ;-)
i keed, i keed...
i also program for browsers, and i hate ie
but your example sucks
you should be doing posts, not gets, for large chunks of data
no matter what ie's limits are
get submissions really shouldn't be bigger than 256 characters
for many reasons
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/forms/methods.html
good
please drive ie6 usage into the basement, so i don't have to support it anymore. i don't want to have to refer to ActiveXObject, when I want an XMLHttpRequest, ever again, thank you
on a related note, i have a recent server log that indicates someone just visited my site in january with IE3
IE3!?
some sort of masochist?
more ad hominem
in a complaint about ad hominem
what do you need me for?
yell at yourself
didn't you just complain about ad hominem attacks?
the complaint only has validity if you don't engage in the behavior yourself
it's a rhetorical concept you should familiarize yourself with: "hypocrisy"
besides, it wasn't an insult. i doubted the guy was cognitively mature. he verified the suspicion. where's the ad hominem on my part?
an ad hominem implies an off subject smear of someone's character. i didn't smear anyone's character, and i wasn't off subject
the servers might be in another country
that other coutnry might have no treaty obligations with you
i've already bought this fact up to others in this thread, and they said well then go to war
and the comment was modded insightful
there are people who would rather go to war than just censor the damned server!
that's either depressing or hilarious, this idea that you can't censor ANYTHING
there are plenty of things you censor, for plenty of good reasons, according to the most liberal and libertarian of thinking
better than censorship
modded as insightful to boot
i weep for humanity