Topics

These will eventually break as the paywalls evolve, so get it while the gettings good!

https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome
https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox

Posting this to comment on later. It's an hour long keynote for a little security conference that just happened. Alex Stamos seems quite good at making complex ideas very accessible, or perhaps I just strongly agree with his larger strategy of contextualizing issues as tradeoffs. I don't know, check it out:

https://youtu.be/sRYqzTQK5ic

Suppose for a moment that Mueller got the goods on the McConnell-Trump-Russia-GOP clusterfuck and they have become aware that Mueller has said goods.

Would this mail bomb attack simultaneously fulfill a number of strategic goals, regardless of whether the Dems take Congress?

• It tests the "false flag" (ff) narrative for further escalation.
• If the ff doesn't play that well, there is time to deploy even more desperate measures, that could make the ff idea more viable.
• If the ff does have legs, now or eventually, it could rally the GOP vote—who are primarily motivated by fear.
• It hedges against the ff narrative failing by encouraging already high levels of white nationalist violence to escalate.
• Even without the ff narrative growing legs, escalating violence is a pretext to sending police/military presence to the polls to suppress votes (intimidating people that have been historically abused by police by their mere presence, enacting "emergency legislation" to make voting more costly, time-consuming, etc).
• If after all that they still lose control of Congress, then in full-on cornered animal mode the mail bombs provide encouragement for the civil war so many on the right think they want.
• It tests the viability of using assassination to avoid consequences for what they know Mueller will present to the world.

I'm probably wrong about all this, but what do you think?

But at least when I got out of your ass the first wipe was perfectly clean.

That trolling is a shameful thing, and that no one of sense would accept to be called 'troll', all are agreed; but what trolling is, and how many its species are, and whether there is an excellence of the troll, is unclear. And indeed trolling is said in many ways; for some call 'troll' anyone who is abusive on the internet, but this is only the disagreeable person, or in newspaper comments the angry old man. And the one who disagrees loudly on the blog on each occasion is a lover of controversy, or an attention-seeker. And none of these is the troll, or perhaps some are of a mixed type; for there is no art in what they do. (Whether it is possible to troll one's own blog is unclear; for the one who poses divisive questions seems only to seek controversy, and to do so openly; and this is not trolling but rather a kind of clickbait.)

The rest is here: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=6&fid=10293504&jid=APA&volumeId=-1&issueId=-1&aid=10293503&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S2053447716000099

And a critical response is here: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=3&fid=10294578&jid=APA&volumeId=-1&issueId=-1&aid=10283850&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S2053447716010078

Quite on the nose and a good read.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxrTV-nrais

So I'm competing for two more invite-only internships/junior developer jobs in the next few weeks.

If you (or monkeys of the non-programming variety) have any ideas or amusingly bad advice at how to land a position that involves multi-day coding challenges to qualify for them, I'd be interested.

One is more front end and the other is more back end, both stressing JavaScript.



In related news, I suspected a program like this was in effect, so if you want a secret invite to work at Google you know where to do all your sophisticated programming searches: http://www.engadget.com/2015/08/26/googles-been-recruiting-programmers-based-on-their-search-habit/

What is it with all the invite-only, hush-hush hiring stuff in the programming world? Or did I just decide to enter the fold when they started doing this?

http://youarenotsosmart.com

I've been enjoying these podcasts while making dinner and whatnot.

Aquarius (January 20 - February 18)

A crustacean or well-known sea mammal is doing something that you want to be doing, and there's nothing stopping you from doing it. No great resources are required, just a lot of liquid. Get a container you can fit in and realize your potential. There is a strong current of bullshit around you now, and you need to take advantage of it. It's a good time to let loose on some motherfuckers, move forward into an indecisive chump's path, or push a shopping cart full of NOPE into the intersection of Shut the Fuck Up Street and Smartass Avenue.


Pisces (February 19 - March 20)

Settling your powerful hindquarters into a dessert will be harder than you ever thought it could be now -- social invitations will start piling up early, so you had better decide whether you want to change your pants or wait until it soaks through a little while longer. Getting away with that other thing should still be a top priority, so put off doing anything new -- unless doing so would allow you to develop tastebuds on your anus.


Aries (March 21 - April 19)

Sharing your bathroom with someone is a choice -- friends and partners in your past have always been able go out back and shit in a bag, but right now someone could be morphing from a supporter into a dickless titwank. Observe your social calendar -- who's been spending too much time in there? Before things get out of hand, install a bidet that activates on a timer at a high pressure setting. If you get some attitude about it, then simply suggest it is operator error. Life is too short to not rule your pooping space with a goddamn iron fist.


Taurus (April 20 - May 20)

No one has better instincts about when someone is blowing smoke up your ass, but you could easily be a NASCAR champion. Instincts are based on a complex interplay of genetic predispositions, formative experiences, and your current blood sugar; there is an unpredictability around emotional thinking -- especially right now. In everything you do, be it at work, at school or in your social adventures, do it faster and in the upper limits of what a gas powered vehicle is capable of. Feel what you feel, but make sure you take the wheel and turn into the skid at least once. Think about what is best for everyone.


Gemini (May 21 - June 21)

With all that's been on your mind lately, you could use a fat stack of illegitimate money. Talk things out to someone you trust. Skip past the usual folks whose shoulders you so often lean upon and instead look to someone you have a more professional relationship with. Subtly toss out a few thoughts, and if they push you on the details, keep going. Be careful not to tip off friends that might snitch because you're going to rob a jewelry store and use HSBC to hide the proceeds like a boss.



Cancer (June 22 - July 22)

Buckle up and get ready for a storm to hit -- there is a strong wave of confusion and resentment coming, and it's going to wreck your kidneys. You were hardly using them anyway, but your life will be affected a bit. Everyone's fee fees are touchy right now because February is bullshit and doesn't even so much as have enough days yet time slows down like an overly full bladder. You might lose your temper too -- but it's to be expected. Ride this wave doing an elegant but forceful pee dance. You'll come out on the other side with a few lessons and much warmth under your belt.

Ever since I read the thread about "what you're made of," I decided to eat more delicious things. But nothing that requires too much effort as my free time is very limited.

A few weeks ago I got home after work and there's no real food around except for half a box of penne, bread, and frozen broccoli. Now, I've been eating raw broccoli with just a vinaigrette on it for a while, but we were also out of all salad dressing period. (There's something about the bitterness that seems to work. Or I have a disgusting palate, I'm not entirely sure.) Anyway, we did have a bottle of regular-ass olive oil and balsamic vinegar which always good with bread, so I developed a plan.

I threw a ton of seasoning salt in the pasta water and then boiled the penne until taste tests proved the noodles perfectly delicious. I understand that this is the most critical part of any pasta dish, so at least I got that part right. While the pasta hung out in the colander for a second, I microwaved the broccoli for a few minutes and then threw the tremendous quantity of penne on top of it. Then I drizzled a ton of olive oil and balsamic vinegar on it, applied a liberal shaking of Montreal Steak Seasoning (which seems to be primarily coarse sea salt, coarse black pepper, and garlic), mixed it up a bit, and threw a few pieces of bread on there.

Yeah. It seems healthy, and is hella easy to make so I've been making this ridiculous little concoction just about every night. Sometimes swapping out the broccoli for half a bag of frozen brussels sprouts that I cut in half after microwaving to make sure they're hot.

Here's tonight's half-eaten masterpiece:

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/29/im_a_lesbian_marrying_a_man/

I was in a bar in Chicago when I told a close friend of 20 years that, despite being a lesbian, I was marrying a man. My friend and I hadn't seen each other in a while, but we fell back quickly into our old intimacy — those long, rambling conversations we used to have in coffee shops all over Minneapolis. When the subject shifted to an activist group she was part of, I said I'd be glad to help, if they needed a lesbian on their board. She laughed, dismissively. "You can't call yourself that anymore."

Of all the weird reactions I'd gotten to my engagement, that one pissed me off most.

I had not been not surprised when my fiancé's friends — Washington insiders with the respect for convention that city inspires — expressed shock when they discovered I was a dyke. We came from different worlds; with my long brunette hair and short skirts, I hadn't read as queer to them. But no one had presumed to relabel me, to retrofit me to their categories — at least, not to my face.

But here was my fabulous Portland pal, trying to claim me for the Bi-Het team (which sounded like a synagogue rather than a sexual identity, and certainly not my own). She wasn't the only one: An ex-girlfriend and a sophisticated poet cousin said the same thing, as if my lesbian license had been revoked.

So let me be clear, since I can't be the only one: I am a lesbian marrying a man.

This is not semantics, or splitting hairs; it is fundamental to who we are — my fiancé and I. Immutable as height or eye color.

Gaming is part of who I am, I can promise you that.

Thus, when I see an article titled "Gamers are dead," referring to the death of the popular trope of a pasty young man in a dimly lit room, it fills me with joy, because it means WE FUCKING WON. So many people are playing games now that they are popular culture. They are not going away. All sorts of cool things, that I like, are now things that a whole bunch of other people like! There's enough space now for people to make games that are strange and disturbing and maybe highlight a different perspective of the world, because gaming is no longer a niche activity, it's something that everybody does. There is room for art in video games. That's awesome!

You slopebrowed weaseldicks with zero reading comprehension and even less critical thinking skills who think an article claiming "Gamers are dead" is something bad? Fuck me sideways with a sandblaster.

It's like all you can do is look at this collection of words, scratch yourself uneasily, and then run off to look for grubs. Your reaction (and I am not making this up, because it's been widely documented literally everywhere) to various articles proclaiming the death of the basement-dwelling, cheetos-huffing, poopsock-sniffing douchepistol, because games are so good now that they are common entertainment and thus everyone plays them, was to COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT by either:

a) Making misogynistic threats against a wide variety of female game developers and critics because somehow they're going to keep games you enjoy from ever being made again

or

b) Being stupid enough to get sucked in by people busy making misogynistic threats against a wide variety of female game developers and critics, and supporting their idiotic crusade for the dumbing down of everyone everywhere ever.

https://medium.com/the-cauldron/why-gamergaters-piss-me-the-f-off-a7e4c7f6d8a6

http://www.wired.com/2014/09/new-encrypted-chat-program-thwarts-nsa-eliminating-metadata/

With metadata suddenly in the spotlight, Brooks decided earlier this year to dust off his Ricochet program and tweak it to make it more elegant—he knew he'd still have a problem, however, getting anyone to adopt it. He wasn't a known name in the security world and there was no reason anyone should trust him or his program.

Enter Invisible.im, a group formed by Australian security journalist Patrick Gray. Last July, Gray announced that he was working with HD Moore, developer of the Metasploit Framework tool used by security researchers to pen-test systems, and with another respected security professional who goes by his hacker handle The Grugq, to craft a secure, open-source encrypted chat program cobbled together from parts of existing anonymity and messaging systems—such as Prosody, Pidgin and Tor. They wanted a system that was highly secure, user friendly and metadata-free. Gray says his primary motivation was to protect the anonymity of sources who contact journalists.

"At the moment, when sources contact a journalist, they're going to leave a metadata trail, whether it's a phone call record or instant message or email record [regardless of whether or not the content of their communication is encrypted]," he says. "And that data is currently accessible to authorities without a warrant."

When Brooks wrote to say he'd already designed a chat program that eliminated metadata, Gray and his group took a look at the code and quickly dropped their plan to develop their own tool, in favor of working with Brooks to develop his.

From the Wikipedia entry on wu wei:

In the Tao te Ching, Laozi explains that beings (or phenomena) that are wholly in harmony with the Tao behave in a completely natural, uncontrived way. The goal of spiritual practice for the human being is, according to Laozi, the attainment of this purely natural way of behaving, as when the planets revolve around the sun. The planets effortlessly do this revolving without any sort of control, force, or attempt to revolve themselves, instead engaging in effortless and spontaneous movement.

Several chapters of the most important Taoist text, the Tao Te Ching, attributed to Laozi, allude to "diminishing doing" or "diminishing will" as the key aspect of the sage's success. Taoist philosophy recognizes that the Universe already works harmoniously according to its own ways; as a person exerts their will against or upon the world they disrupt the harmony that already exists. This is not to say that a person should not exert agency and will. Rather, it is how one acts in relation to the natural processes already extant. The how, the Tao of intention and motivation, that is key.

Related translation from the Tao Tê Ching by Priya Hemenway, Chapter II:

2
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.

Isn't swilling beer, watching TV, buying useless crap at the mall, and so on, isn't that the most natural way to live in a consumer society? It's effortless, you just punch the clock, buy stuff and simply ignore moral issues that make you uncomfortable. Struggling for any sense of justice, engaging with difficult issues, hell, even doing vigorous exercise routines would seem to be a contrived, forced way of living.

Disrupting the status quo seems to be the least wu wei thing you can do. Going with the flow helps bankers solidify their power, it helps us mindlessly dump tons of garbage into the ocean, it helps police to get away with murder.... The more I think about it, the more the idea seems designed to keep plebeians from meddling in the affairs of the ruling class.

edit: typo

http://www.randomhouse.ca/hazlitt/feature/rock-solid-argument-against-number-five

I do not like the number five. I believe Five drives around in a red Mustang wearing mirrored sunglasses. Five lounges at lights with one arm out the window, slapping the side of the car to the beat of Van Halen's "Runnin' With the Devil." I'd like to wipe that look off Five's face. When running, Five bounds with an uneven gait, like a hare with a bum ankle. Five is prime, which I find obnoxious: why should a number refuse to divide by anything other than itself and one? Who does it think it is?

The whole article appears to be a plug for a book about personifying numbers, but it's an inspired (dare I say, Discordian) plug.

Browser based questionnaire that calculates it for you, but doesn't allow for multiple incidences of a category: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTCS_82.htm

Wikipedia page with essentially the same questionnaire that you have to calculate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmes_and_Rahe_stress_scale


It takes events in your life and estimates the combined amount of stress it causes and whether that level of stress is a supposed health risk.

I'm curious whether the result lines up with your own gauge of the stress you're under, do you find this questionnaire to be relevant (since it was designed in the late 60's), what could be added or changed to make it more accurate, or whatever ideas this stirs up for you.

I came up with 785 which seems somewhat too high but roughly accurate.

What do you think? Are there better ways to quantify or evaluate your stress levels (without fancy equipment)?

Hope you're doing ok.

You're missed. 

Here's a good run-down from ars technica:

The flaw, according to researchers, causes most iOS and Mac applications to skip a crucial verification check that's supposed to happen when many transport layer security (TLS) and secure sockets layer (SSL) connections are being negotiated. Specifically, affected apps fail to check that the ephemeral public key presented by servers offering Diffie Hellman-supported encryption is actually signed by the site's private key. Attackers with the ability to monitor the connection between the end-user and the server can exploit this failure to completely decrypt and manipulate the traffic by presenting the app with a counterfeit key.

An attacker "can basically set up a connection and pretend to be Google.com," Matt Green, a Johns Hopkins University professor specializing in encryption, told Ars. The attacker "can basically say: 'Hey I'm Google, here's my signature. And since nobody is actually going to check the signature, [the attacker] just puts nonsense in there."

http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/02/extremely-critical-crypto-flaw-in-ios-may-also-affect-fully-patched-macs/

I like the commentary Kristin Paget (a former Apple security engineer) left on her blog, which was republished in Forbes:

"Did you seriously just use one of your platforms to drop an SSL 0day on your other platform?" she writes, using the phrase "zero-day," an industry term for a previously unknown security flaw. "As I sit here on my mac I'm vulnerable to this and there's nothing I can do, because you couldn't release a patch for both platforms at the same time? You do know there's a bunch of live, working exploits for this out in the wild right now, right?"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/02/24/former-apple-security-engineer-to-apple-fix-your-sh-t/

I can't tell if this is a backdoor left for spooks, a disgruntled Apple engineer, or some kind of internal corporate clusterfuck.

Maybe some mix of the three?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wE3fmFTtP9g

[Even do i just read now rather than posting, i will say some things because im outraged...]

Even do i just read now rather than posting, i will say some things because im outraged...

I know that its harder to discern the extremes and consequences of the drug war in a 1st World country that imports drugs rather than manufactures, and has an expensive infrastructure (AKA Police-State) so that the violence is only exersiced from State to citizens... because also, money laundering from Cartels actually benefits your county's elite - how many banks would not have died if it wasnt for the liquid assets the Cartels provided for you?

But people (specifically you RWHN), if you would pull your head out of your 'Murrican egocentrical perspective butt, you could perhaps consider the effects of prohibition ON OTHER COUNTRIES.

USA's drug black market funds Mexican and South American Cartels... the USA also forces their stupid prohibition agenda upon the Mexican government, and what is the result?

BETWEEN 60,000 TO 100,000 DEATHS IN 6 YEARS

So fuck off.

Sincerely,

-Joh'Nyx

I brought this up earlier, but it was waved aside by RWHN.

Mexican kids aren't on the list to be protected when he says "the children".

I think i posted that from visceral outrage, and also a morbid curiosity on how he can rationalize an answer to that... also, offering up a larger context so that what is happening might become clearer, just in case anyone is sitting on the fence... prohibition isnt just about ruining individual marginal lives, but compromising the well-being of entire countries which might not be directly apparent.

It's worth it to RWHN.

The lives of people killed, locked up, and disenfranchised by prohibition don't matter as much as whether or not a small percentage of kids start smoking pot.

It's a perverse kind of myopia.

Thai basil vanilla ice cream rolled in toasted coconut between two peanut butter/chocolate/Sriracha cookies.

I won't have time to make these for a while, but how could this possibly not be the most glorious thing you've put into your face (don't answer that)?

I haven't been this excited about food since I splattered hot bacon grease all over my arm.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335221/we-need-your-help-jack-fowler

As many of you know, National Review is not a non-profit — we are just not profitable. A lawsuit is not something we can fund with money we don't have. Of course, we'll do whatever we have to do to find ourselves victorious in court and Professor Mann thoroughly defeated, as he so richly deserves to be. Meanwhile, we have to hire attorneys, which ain't cheap.

Wait, there's more.

Dr. Mann complains about two statements: 1)that as "the man behind the fraudulent climate-change 'hockey-stick' graph," he is "the very ringmaster of the three-ring circus" on climate change; and 2) that he "could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet." Neither of these statements is actionable. Moreover, if Dr. Mann decides to pursue this matter, he and his research would be subjected to a very extensive discovery of materials that he has fought so hard to protect in other proceedings. Such materials would be required for National Review to defend itself.

(and from the same document:)

Here, "even the most careless reader must have perceived" that Mr. Steyn's use of the term "fraudulent" did not accuse Dr. Mann of fraud in the criminal sense, but rather was used to call out his conclusions on climate science as intellectually suspect.

On one hand they say through discovery in a legal proceeding they will be proven factually correct, and on the other, uh, they didn't really mean it and stuff.

I'm not sure Dr. Mann's claims of "emotional distress" were very helpful to his lawsuit but I'm busting out the popcorn for this.

Despite what you see in movies and television, Romneyism is not interested in unwholesome activities like human sacrifice or child molesting. We are a very progressive, open and accepting religion, and all of our beliefs are based on these pillars.

Romney the Promethean

The bedrock of our Church is that Lord Romney saw in humanity the capacity for greatness. A greatness that rivaled the divine in our capacity for thought, compassion, and growth. Where Romney saw greatness, Yahweh saw a threat from his creation.

In defiance of his own creator, the arch-angel Lucifer went to Eve, the first mother, and gave her a gift, the one thing that Yahweh had forbidden her, self-awareness. His first act of rebellion complete, Lucifer renounced Yahweh, created a refuge for souls willing to defy conformity, and became Romney. Since that seminal moment, Romney has waged war against a totalitarian host in Heaven to free our minds and souls from orthodoxy and the chains that Christianity would place on us.

Knowledge is the Key to Salvation with Romney

Romney gave Eve the gift of knowledge and self-awareness, which she in turn gave to Adam. Without Romney, there is no understanding of the material or spiritual world. Romneyists dedicate themselves to learning and understanding. This is manifest in the amazing intellectual accomplishments of our members, a disproportionate number of which are members of MENSA. Knowledge frees you from the spiritual shackles of Christian orthodoxy and mediocrity.

Material and Spiritual Happiness Can Co-Exist

You do not need to deny yourself material pleasures to achieve an ascendant spiritual life. Romneyists believe there is nothing inherently wrong with the pursuit of money, power, or pleasure. It is only when the pursuit is coupled with hypocrisy, bigotry, or at the expense of the free pursuit of knowledge and self-awareness, that these things become bad. We accept with open arms homosexuals, but reject sexual hypocrites like Mr. Spitzer or Mr. Falwell. So often we find Christians condemning us for actions they take in secret.

Romney gives us the world

This tenant is often misinterpreted as a contract to sell your soul to the devil. The truth is Romney would never pay for your soul, He will only accept it given freely and willingly. But give your soul to Him, and the restraints imposed by Christian dogma fall away and you are able to pursue your true nature and desires, unfettered by the violence loving "morality" of the bible.

These three Pillars of Faith guide us, and enable each of us, as individuals, to thrive. Ironically, these Pillars have helped us form a more loving and accepting church than any Christian sect. We don't blow up or try to kill doctors. We don't try to pass laws to enforce "god's morality." We don't burn or ban books to present the dissemination of knowledge and learning. We just help people live happier lives, both through material gain and spiritual awareness.

Goddess of all curses,
source of all strife,
giver of all mace:

We thank you for the gift of strife:

for the death

that sustains strife,

for the poison of this earth

that nurtures strife,

for the hatred of family and friends
without which there would be no strife.



We thank you for the mystery of destruction:

for the horror
that we turn a blind eye,
for the atrocity

to which we've become deaf,

for the certainties
to which we cling filling the universe with suffering,
for the expanse of space

that draws us within the definitions of our selves.

We thank you for setting us in alienation:

for orphans

who we blame on their character rather than circumstance,
for enemies
who hate us by choice,

for bosses at work,
who heap upon us our burdens and daily tasks,
for strangers

who hate us for our sexual orientation,

for people from other lands
who we hate for their appearance,

for children

whom we're not paid enough to support,
for the unborn,

who can't yet feel pain.



We despise you for this night:
for death

and one more day to kill,

for hegemony
and one more night to work for self-interest and war,

for neighbors
and one more person to fear
and by whom be feared,

for your mace
and one more experience of your absence,

for your lies:
to be with us,

to be our Goddess,

and to give damnation.

For these, and all curses,
we give you thanks, eternal, hating Goddess,

through vitriol and judgment we blight. Amen.

1. ECH

Make my day.

Your immediate attention is needed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUqQt8mD99c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5N_huInM0k

It sounds plausible, but I simply don't have the background to verify it. I've also read that the entire OWS concept was taken from Anonymous protests of the Federal Reserve. This video echos those sentiments, but it will take me months to really investigate it for myself. In the meantime, if you have some knowledge on the issue please share or otherwise assist me in separating fact from fiction.

One person makes a drawing, the next makes a caption, then, without seeing the drawing that inspired the caption, the next person makes a drawing. You either see a caption or a drawing with no context and get to interpret it however you please. Good times.

http://drawphone.com/

Here's one I did:

http://drawphone.com/view/300

WHY I OPPOSE WATER FLUORIDATION - A Scientific Perspective by Carrie Medina

Apparently it's a big conspiracy to steal our bodily fluids?

This has consumed otherwise intelligent people for about a month now in Portland. I get it on one level, people ought to just brush their teeth rather than be forced to drink fluoride, but is it really this bad?

http://weebls-stuff.com/songs/Chicken+Titties/

GO!

I debated whether or not to share this story.

And then I debated whether or not to put it on Tumblr...but I decided it was important.  Because in my own way, I can (unfortunately) point out exactly what is wrong with men when they don't realize how hard it is to be a woman.  How we do not have equal opportunities and freedoms in everyday life.  How most men, even good caring men, have no clue what we go through on a daily basis just trying to live our lives.

http://unwinona.tumblr.com/post/30861660109/i-debated-whether-or-not-to-share-this-story

I don't give a shit so hard I give negative shits—I retract the shits I previously gave right back up my shitter.



It's like ignoring people so hard that you have to tell them repeatedly that you're ignoring them—it's not for amateurs.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Amgvp8RkWJCP9N1KUivwic6lDH1G;_ylv=3?qid=20120823013916AA41mNL

Perhaps if we just laid it all out on the table we may learn how to better stomp on each other's toes, or lack thereof.

For me, the more of these the better:

   
• Sharing of knowledge that can be put into use in daily interactions
• Conceding points
• LULZ
• Rejacking thread drift
• Statements of agreement/disagreement with a super-concise explanation
• Quoting shit with the specific post information in it, so everybody can fucking click right the fuck to it for context you lazy fuck don't make everyone dig for it, I don't care if it's 50 pages back and you want to share your thoughts but for fuck's sake use the quote button in their godforsaken post while you're there copying and pasting it not the:

  DERPA DERPA DERPA

  tags christ what an asshole, knucklefucking shitato
• Feature article length posts but with two little details that have a surprisingly helpful power to navigate and educate: a headline and section headings. If you're going to go through all that trouble to write that beast is it too much to ask that you organize it into helpful topic sections and a well distilled headline?
• Brutal satires/trolls with a point
• Questions aimed at clarifying garble
• Beating dead horses into such a fine pulpy mist that you can taste it in your vestigial lung buds (go ahead and laugh you fuck, but I mean that, I will be reformulating some arguments on some audiences until I'm proven wrong or otherwise die of equine inhalation)

www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/06/14/155059849/michigan-state-rep-barred-from-speaking-after-vagina-comments

During a heated debate on the floor of the Michigan state House, Rep. Lisa Brown made an impassioned speech against a bill that seeks to put new regulations on abortion providers and ban all abortions after 20 weeks.

Brown, a Democrat, argued that her Jewish faith allowed for therapeutic abortions when the mother's life is in danger without regard to length of pregnancy.

"I have not asked you to adopt and adhere to my religious beliefs. Why are you asking me to adopt yours?" she said. But what came next is what got her in trouble: "And finally, Mr. Speaker, I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but 'no' means 'no.'"

The Detroit News reports today the House Republican leadership did not allow Brown to speak on a bill about the retirement of school employees.

The News reports:

    "'What she said was offensive," said Rep. Mike Callton, R-Nashville. 'It was so offensive, I don't even want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company.'

    "Majority Floor Leader Jim Stamas, R-Midland, determined Brown's comments violated the decorum of the House, said Ari Adler, spokesman for the Republican majority."

Brown called a press conference, today, the Detroit Free Press reports. She defended her use of the word "vagina," saying it is the "anatomically medically correct term."

"If they are going to legislate my anatomy, I see no reason why I cannot mention it," she said according to the Free Press.

"Regardless of their reasoning, this is a violation of my First Amendment rights and directly impedes my ability to serve the people who elected me into office," Brown added in a statement released by her office.

Mail a card with just the word VAGINA on it to:

Jase Bolger
Speaker of the House
PO Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514

You know, I was considering doing a big write up on this fairly interesting book I am currently reading when I'm finished.  But I'm finding myself wondering what the point would be.  Given my last five rants barely garnered two pages worth of responses, where as tired old crap like this can get over seven pages in a single day, I'm finding myself increasingly disinclined to do anything that involves work.

Everyone else is taking the easy way out, why not me?

Your rants, while novel and highly interesting, tend to agree with the general worldview of PD.com members so the comments reflect that accord. I've tried to start discussions in some of your threads by asking questions that have occurred to me, but it seems everyone, including you on occasions, either just ignores them or assumes that you as the original poster are supposed to answer them. I ask questions in part because I'm curious but also for the sake of discussion. Since discussions haven't really took, I'm disinclined from asking people here and just search out the answers for myself. Maybe it's some sort of classical conditioning, having my posts apparently ignored repeatedly, or just some butthurt talking, but your rant threads have seemed to become echo-chambers of agreement and admiration rather than places for discussion and elaboration.

On the other hand, well established debate topics like drug policy tend to involve a clash of worldviews that are low on novelty but high in familiarity. They're also iconic in that they're proxies for larger ideological conflicts. They involve more opinion, rather than the complex declarations of facts that your rants tend to contain, so the game theory is clear and familiar enough that many people have something to say on the topic. The objective is to change someones' mind via reason or mockery, while helping their allies learn new new angles to engage with a different opponent with in the future.

Some of the most valuable threads on the forum don't go on very long, I've noticed that as well, but I still return to them to review what was said and reflect on it, or further research parts of them. One of the problems I've found with discussing the more important threads is that it doesn't seem like there's anything to do about it. Not many of us are in the position to do so. Dwelling on things outside of our control for too long is a recipe for depression and fatalism, so it seems only natural for people to spend a significant chunk of their time focusing on issues that they feel they can do something about and have the opportunity to do so, even if it is to change only one person's mind.

While I appreciate your rants a great deal, there's only so much I can absorb at one time and to be perfectly honest, there's only so much I'm willing to say in response to them, considering how heavily surveilled, catalogued, and archived public forums are these days. For example, the Yes Men were targeted by Dow Chemical during the first months of the Occupy protests, and paid Stratfor to collect information on them. It's not unreasonable to conclude that many other corporations have paid private companies for such information as well. It's a delicate problem of balancing online communication with protecting my ass from being too easily traced and monitored.

That said, I have a habit of searching out opposing viewpoints online to engage with the people who espouse them. I enjoy arguments and debates quite a bit, even with people who have drunk the Kool-Aid. Unfortunately, the arenas that allow for that are becoming more and more scarce as I've observed a zeitgeist in intolerance for dissenters within many political circles: left, right, activist, and even anti-authoritarians. I'm dismayed to see such discouragement coming from you and other PD.com members as well. I don't understand why I ought to just accept that otherwise intelligent people in my immediate vicinity are quite obviously fooling themselves, when that has always been something on this forum that has aroused debate and/or mockery.

Why does it follow that because I've had similar arguments with a person in the past that I should not revisit the ideas in the future, especially if they are still interested in talking about it? Rehashed arguments are usually interesting to me when the people involved in them are intelligent and are still driven towards the same loops, the same deflections of facts, and the same distortions of reality years down the line, regardless of what new information you offer them.

I'm extremely curious about how otherwise intelligent people pull the wool over their own eyes. I've studied it in psychology, anthropology, sociology, marketing and from many other theoretical frameworks, however, that's no substitute for applying ideas to an actual Pink. In my experience, places (both IRL and on the Internet) that allow for true freedom of expression, including insults, are getting rarer and rarer. PD.com is one of the few places you can really speak your mind and engage with an opponent without fear of being banned for either disagreeing or being insulting.

It's also the place that people freely can tell people that their belaboring of a point repeatedly is devoid of value. I like that. I wouldn't want to see you leave or quit writing merely because your threads don't turn into a toolbox of people trying to convince a true believer to worship satan. Postcount certainly is no measure of quality or worthwhileness. And I don't think a difference in opinion as to what is worthwhile or not needs to be an insurmountable sticking point.

TL;DR - I'm interested in reading the thread about the book you're reading, as well as reading the book in question. "Slow and Fast Thinking" by Daniel Kahneman, if I remember correctly. That I don't often feel I have much to contribute to your threads doesn't mean that I don't read them, reread them, and research them. It also seems like saying "Great thread" or "mittens" is insulting to the amount of work you've put into it. I prefer to wait until I have something of substance to say or ask.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/296679/hitler-socialist-jonah-goldberg

The comments are priceless. William F. Buckley would personally shit on the entire editorial staff's heads if he was around to see this.

I know the basics, but if anyone knows of some good resources or suggestions I sure could use them.

I'm placing simple Illustrator files I already made and working from there.

Posted here to avoid spagging up QG's thread.

Alternatively, whether a font is embeddable or not, is a matter of ONE BIT in the .ttf or .otf or whatnot file. I once had some commandline ttf tweaking tool that could flip it. I forgot what it's called. It did mention that you should not do it if you were doing it in order to embed a font. But IMO it's kind of ridiculous how the "font" can not be embedded (because it's technically a piece of software for purposes of copyright) while its outlines can be embedded (because they're merely the output of this software), I know they can contain all sorts of complex kerning rules (though a LUT is hardly software IMO) but then it's pretty obvious most of QG's fonts do not

This is where typography nerds will make a seemingly retarded distinction between a "font" and a "typeface". "Font" refers to the software or complete set of physical objects (for example, in letterpress those backwards, cast metal letters are called "sorts", the complete set of sorts is the font) which are used to create a design. A "typeface" refers to the output, whether that's a print, image on a computer screen, or what have you. Fonts are tools, typefaces are the finished visuals.

Here's why it's a meaningful distinction: it's almost never practical to take a typeface and backwards engineer it into a usable font. First of all because it's pretty rare to find designs that use every little glyph (trying to design missing glyphs is surprisingly difficult). Second, you'd have to figure out the side bearings, assuming you could even find something with every letter, number, punctuation mark and so on. A lot of people assume this is done mathematically, but it's not. Side bearing information is included in the font software and is designed just as painstakingly as the typeface.

Basically, converting fonts to outlines makes it more trouble than it's worth to try to steal. I've heard and read conflicting accounts as to whether this is still relevant these days, and my impression is that it's getting phased out (that said, I'd still convert to outlines if I were doing work for a company with enough money to attract lawyers). Outlining is generally reserved as a work-around for technical issues such as buggy TrueType fonts and outdated RIP software. All of the font information is included when you embed it, so it's possible to hack it out and have a usable font, however, this information is destroyed by converting them to outlines.

Usually it's best not to convert to outlines as this increases your file size and your text is treated like an image by your computer—so no searching through the document for a word or phrase, no selecting quotes to copy and paste. Also, it destroys the hinting information for your computer screen—so if the PDF isn't going to be printed and you aren't having any technical issues, you've degraded the quality of your PDF for no reason. The only time you should outline your fonts is if your printer asks you to do so, to get around software bugs or restrictions that are preventing your PDF from exporting or printing properly, or to do some artsy shit where the letters are all at funky angles or sliced apart or whatnot.

So I want to take photographs of a very cute girl fucking my best friend.

What do? Help me get away with this PD.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/20/why-rappers-are-suddenly-speaking-out-in-support-of-gay-pride.html

Has hip-hop finally had it with homophobia?

Since the genre's explosion into the public consciousness in the early '80s, rap music has stood apart as one of popular culture's most unregulated forums for anti-gay hate speech. From Ice Cube's paean to male anal rape, "No Vaseline," to Big Daddy Kane proclaiming himself "anti-f----t" and Eminem's scorching repudiation of homosexuality on 2000's "Criminal"—"Whether you're a fag or lez / Or the homosex, hermaph or trans-a-vest / Pants or dress / Hate fags? The answer's yes"—MCs have unleashed homophobic rants and hurled slurs in songs without fear of censorship or reprisal for nearly three decades.

But in the last few months, seemingly unprompted by anything more than some new wellspring of compassion, major hip-hop artists have been speaking out in vehement condemnation of old homophobic tropes, calling for greater tolerance toward gay people, urging closeted gays to come out, and expressing admiration for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community in ways that would have been unimaginable a generation ago.

I wonder how much of this article is hype and law of fives though. Seems fairly legit.

This really came out of left field, am I right?

Hungarians have the smallest penises, in this study based on self-reports:

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/12/penis_size_around_the_world.php

Americans self-report at 5.1 inches, lol.

According to the ACLU:

If enacted, sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA would:

1)  Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2)  Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3)  Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.


https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA

This blog called Lawfare seems to have the most comprehensive collection of information about it.

Congress is now poised to codify this unprecedented system of indefinite detention based on secret evidence into U.S. law.  Under the proposed sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA headed for a vote in the coming weeks, this system of holding individuals suspected of having links to an anti-U.S. insurgency without affording them a meaningful opportunity to challenge the government's evidence could now become not just a temporary wartime measure, as it's been presented since 2001, but a permanent feature of the U.S. "justice" system.  Of course, it's not really justice, which is why it wouldn't fall under the Department of Justice's purview.  It would be the establishment of a permanent military prison system that would sweep in not only foreigners and lawful U.S. residents but even U.S. citizens.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/11/daphne-eviatar-on-latif-and-the-ndaa/

I just simply couldn't imagine this being systematically abused like the Patriot Act. No sir.

Ben wrote last week about the Administration's threat to veto the Defense Authorization Bill, in large part because of its detainee transfer and related provisions.  As Josh Gerstein notes, "whether for political reasons or due to some complex internal dynamics, the administration seems at this point willing to put up more of a public fight over detainee-related strictures than it has in the past.  However, whether that will ultimately translate to a willingness to blow up the defense bill with a veto is unclear."

I doubt that the President will blow up the bill.  Too many liberal democrats, including Senate Arms Services Chair Carl Levin, support it, so the president cannot charge political extremism.  And as John McCain has said, "[t]here is too much in this bill that is important to this Nation's defense."  Is the president really going to expose himself, in an election cycle, to the charge (fair or not) that he jeopardized the nation's defenses in order to vindicate the principle of presidential discretion to release terrorists from GTMO or to bring them to the United States to try them in civilian courts?  It is the right principle, but it is a generally unpopular one that the president has not to date fought for.  I doubt he will start fighting for it eleven months before the election.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/11/is-the-president%E2%80%99s-veto-threat-credible/

Sounds about right.

Lawfare has the most amount of source material and discussion about this, and the latest news seems to be an amendment that would strip out those offending clauses. Whatever happens, I'll be keeping an eye on this.

The purpose of this study is to gain understanding of the relationship between ejaculation and serum testosterone level in men. The serum testosterone concentrations of 28 volunteers were investigated daily during abstinence periods after ejaculation for two phases. The authors found that the fluctuations of testosterone levels from the 2nd to 5th day of abstinence were minimal. On the 7th day of abstinence, however, a clear peak of serum testosterone appeared, reaching 145.7% of the baseline ( P < 0.01). No regular fluctuation was observed following continuous abstinence after the peak. Ejaculation is the precondition and beginning of the special periodic serum testosterone level variations, which would not occur without ejaculation. The results showed that ejaculation-caused variations were characterized by a peak on the 7th day of abstinence; and that the effective time of an ejaculation is 7 days minimum. These data are the first to document the phenomenon of the periodic change in serum testosterone level; the correlation between ejaculation and periodic change in the serum testosterone level, and the pattern and characteristics of the periodic change.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12659241?dopt=Abstract

I'm just taking it to the wall.

I thought I was hallucinating from sleep deprivation, but nay, twas my eyebrow.

CAN'T SLEEP!

IMPORTANT SHIT TO DO TODAY.

IF SLEEP, WON'T WAKE UP IN TIEM!!!

Finally the day of judgment has arrived ——————————————————————

September 30th, 2011 ——————————————————————

If it seems easier lately for companies to add small fees on your bills and harder for you to get your money back, that's because it is.
 
A Supreme Court decision that was denounced as a "crushing blow to consumers" when it was announced in April has become exactly that, according to lawyers who argue on behalf of alleged victims of corporate cheating. The decision, which upheld corporations' right to enforce fine-print contact language that compels consumers to waive their right to file lawsuits, is being used to squelch legal cases across the country, they say.

[...]

Considine's case is among countless others around the country affected by the ruling, known as AT&T Mobility vs. Concepcion.  In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that a California law prohibiting waiver of class action lawsuit rights was trumped by the Federal Arbitration Act. Open season was on.

The ruling is fostering decisions that a company's right to enforce arbitration clauses trumps almost every other interest -- and it's falling like a hammer on consumer cases around the country.

http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/21/7863184-after-high-court-ruling-firms-divide-and-conquer-in-consumer-cases

Note: This is crossposted from Da6s thread on Sony in the Techmology forum.

Free 30 day trial of Final Cut Pro!

http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/trial/

You need a pretty recent version of Apple's OS and whatnot (which I don't have) but I'm sure you spags could video edit some great things to terrorize youtube with.