Work just bought me an iPhone. No really, WTF?
- Z
Zobar's Journal
My Podcast Link
09/19/2007 21:22 #41200
wtf?Category: wtf
09/17/2007 16:31 #41157
this shit makes me illCategory: schadenfreude
This is what you get when you start a company, name it something completely idiotic like AMP'D Mobile, and convince them that you're so awesome they need to buy you a Ferrari: Guess what! You've wasted all your fucking money and now you've got to peddle your ass for nickels! This is a complete inventory of everything they chose to spend their company's money on, and they have to sell it all now that they've [predictably] gone out of business. Looking through this stuff is almost anthropological. Christ, it's like the .com bust never happened.
LOT 352: 1997 FERRARI 550M RED/TAN 19,000 MILES, MANUALS, TOOLKIT, VIN#ZFFZR491A1V0109057, CA PLATE 5K0G100 - CALIFORNIA CAR
LOT 353: 2006 FORD F350 DUALLY KING RANCH EDITION 14,500 MILES, V8 6.0L TURBO DIESEL, 4WD VIN# 1FTWW33P06EC47159, NEVADA REGISTRATION
LOT 547A: HUMAN TOUCH BLACK MASSAGE CHAIR WITH OTTOMAN
LOTS 629-632: CPU [?]
LOT 1002: APPLE 30in HD CINEMA DISPLAY 81083
LOT 1196: BGW 1100 POWERED SUBWOOFER
LOTS 1238-1241: [Exceedingly cool classic arcade games]
LOTS 1242-1244: ROCKET
LOT 1245: FOOSEBALL TABLE
LOT 1246: BASKET BALL HOOP
LOT 1385: 20in RIMS
Part 2: I guess the Internet finally killed somebody.
- Z
LOT 352: 1997 FERRARI 550M RED/TAN 19,000 MILES, MANUALS, TOOLKIT, VIN#ZFFZR491A1V0109057, CA PLATE 5K0G100 - CALIFORNIA CAR
LOT 353: 2006 FORD F350 DUALLY KING RANCH EDITION 14,500 MILES, V8 6.0L TURBO DIESEL, 4WD VIN# 1FTWW33P06EC47159, NEVADA REGISTRATION
LOT 547A: HUMAN TOUCH BLACK MASSAGE CHAIR WITH OTTOMAN
LOTS 629-632: CPU [?]
LOT 1002: APPLE 30in HD CINEMA DISPLAY 81083
LOT 1196: BGW 1100 POWERED SUBWOOFER
LOTS 1238-1241: [Exceedingly cool classic arcade games]
LOTS 1242-1244: ROCKET
LOT 1245: FOOSEBALL TABLE
LOT 1246: BASKET BALL HOOP
LOT 1385: 20in RIMS
Part 2: I guess the Internet finally killed somebody.
- Z
zobar - 09/18/07 09:39
Nah, Jamie's on the auction hotline and thought we might want to buy some of their computer equipment.
If I did know them I would have tried to convince them to buy me a Ferrari too. But more likely than not all I woulda gotten was LOT 1409: POWER STRIPS.
- Z
Nah, Jamie's on the auction hotline and thought we might want to buy some of their computer equipment.
If I did know them I would have tried to convince them to buy me a Ferrari too. But more likely than not all I woulda gotten was LOT 1409: POWER STRIPS.
- Z
paul - 09/17/07 20:28
Did you know those people?
Did you know those people?
09/12/2007 20:12 #41067
line status: showtimeCategory: a series of tubes
1: My ISP sold my DSL account to EarthLink when they got out of the business. Tech Support said they were sending me a new modem, but it is nowhere in sight. Today was our sixth day without tubes, and things were getting a little tense. I finally h4x0r3d my b0x3n and now it tells me "Line Status: SHOWTIME." That is a good thing.
2: One of my coworkers lived across the street from these girls [NSFW]. She says they're total bitches.
2a: Anyone you know on here? It's tough to tell, they've got some stuff on their faces.
2b: No offense to all yall, but Buffalo is not exactly the place I would start looking for hot porno chicks.
That is all!
- Z
2: One of my coworkers lived across the street from these girls
[NSFW]. She says they're total bitches.2a: Anyone you know on here? It's tough to tell, they've got some stuff on their faces.
2b: No offense to all yall, but Buffalo is not exactly the place I would start looking for hot porno chicks.
That is all!
- Z
metalpeter - 09/13/07 18:53
First of all links to porn are allways good, If I knew some hot chick who did porn I would so be in it, maybe even for free. I find it kinda funny that they put the join on top of the dicks but you can see the cum all over theeir faces, I didn't join either site. There are a lot of hot ladies in Buffalo and I do know that there is at least one local porn company around here. I wonder if that neighboor ever tried peeping in through the windows.
First of all links to porn are allways good, If I knew some hot chick who did porn I would so be in it, maybe even for free. I find it kinda funny that they put the join on top of the dicks but you can see the cum all over theeir faces, I didn't join either site. There are a lot of hot ladies in Buffalo and I do know that there is at least one local porn company around here. I wonder if that neighboor ever tried peeping in through the windows.
zobar - 09/13/07 14:28
Eh, the two at the top of Amateur Facials run the site and that's who she lives near [they also have a site of their own]. It's pretty likely that most or all of their models come from this area.
No, there's no Playboy Mansion on Lexington Ave. Sorry.
5318008! :::link:::
- Z
Eh, the two at the top of Amateur Facials run the site and that's who she lives near [they also have a site of their own]. It's pretty likely that most or all of their models come from this area.
No, there's no Playboy Mansion on Lexington Ave. Sorry.
5318008! :::link:::
- Z
carolinian - 09/13/07 06:38
Are you saying that all the 20-40 (I'm guestimating from first glance) live in Buffalo, or just one or two from the site live here? Do we have an entire porn theater troupe in Buffalo?
1 8e7 7h3Y h4v3 n1c3 8008135 8u7 4r3n7 1n70 1337 h4x0r5 1iK3 u5
What a shames.
Are you saying that all the 20-40 (I'm guestimating from first glance) live in Buffalo, or just one or two from the site live here? Do we have an entire porn theater troupe in Buffalo?
1 8e7 7h3Y h4v3 n1c3 8008135 8u7 4r3n7 1n70 1337 h4x0r5 1iK3 u5
What a shames.
james - 09/12/07 21:43
Buffalo has plenty of attractive people who's cost of living is so low that porn pay is cheap. Of the many cities I have visited frequently or lived in Buffalo is definitely not hurting. Albany, Albany made the ugly stick uglier when it whacked that town. Yikes. And don't get me started on Baltimore.
Buffalo has plenty of attractive people who's cost of living is so low that porn pay is cheap. Of the many cities I have visited frequently or lived in Buffalo is definitely not hurting. Albany, Albany made the ugly stick uglier when it whacked that town. Yikes. And don't get me started on Baltimore.
09/05/2007 16:07 #40950
cootie catcherCategory: a series of tubes
Emergency Bulletin! Jon Spencer at Mohawk Place next Tuesday
Now on with our regularly-scheduled post:
OK, I was discussing cootie catchers/fortune tellers with (e:dragonlady7). She said she didn't know how to make one, so I Googled it. It is not surprising to me that I found instructions for making a cootie catcher on the Internet. You may follow the link but the URL itself is more interesting than the page.
girlpower.gov/girlarea/gamespuz/cootiecatcher.htm
How wrong is this URL? Let me count the ways:
1: There are instructions on a US Government [.gov] website for making a cootie catcher.
2: There is a website called girlpower.gov at all.
3: I just visited a website's girl area.
Now I feel dirty.
- Z
Now on with our regularly-scheduled post:
OK, I was discussing cootie catchers/fortune tellers with (e:dragonlady7). She said she didn't know how to make one, so I Googled it. It is not surprising to me that I found instructions for making a cootie catcher on the Internet. You may follow the link
but the URL itself is more interesting than the page.girlpower.gov/girlarea/gamespuz/cootiecatcher.htm
How wrong is this URL? Let me count the ways:
1: There are instructions on a US Government [.gov] website for making a cootie catcher.
2: There is a website called girlpower.gov at all.
3: I just visited a website's girl area.
Now I feel dirty.
- Z
tinypliny - 09/05/07 23:23
Wow. I just expanded my vocabulary with the myriad members of the cootie world.
:::link:::
Where I come from, that particular contraption is called "Din-Raat" (Day-Night).
Wow. I just expanded my vocabulary with the myriad members of the cootie world.
:::link:::
Where I come from, that particular contraption is called "Din-Raat" (Day-Night).
carolinian - 09/05/07 22:03
The first time I read your post, I misread it and thought it was titled "coochie catcher". :)
The first time I read your post, I misread it and thought it was titled "coochie catcher". :)
lauren - 09/05/07 18:22
Yes indeed, cootie catcher is a new one on me also.
Yes indeed, cootie catcher is a new one on me also.
theecarey - 09/05/07 17:07
Cootie Catcher? I made millions of those things as a kid- I dont think I ever knew it had a name.
Cootie Catcher? I made millions of those things as a kid- I dont think I ever knew it had a name.
08/27/2007 14:45 #40757
flip flopCategory: politics
1: Facebook is quite addictive
2: Usually I stay away from politics, but here's something to chew on.
Both major political parties have diverse, complex, and often contradictory platforms that go far beyond the simplistic conservative/liberal split. What is interesting is how they take sides when an issue is not addressed by the traditional party platform.
To whit: the electoral college. Republicans typically support it, and Democrats typically oppose it. Both sides can come up with long lists of lofty ideals that support/oppose it, but what it comes down to for both sides is that the electoral college elected a Republican twice in a row.
In the electoral college, most states use the Winner Takes All method but two states [Maine (D x4) and Nebraska (R x5)] use an alternate approach that arguably gives better direct representation. The Democratic Party proposed switching Colorado (R x9) to the new system in 2004, and failed.
Now it seems Republicans are all about more direct representation in the electoral college, but only in California (D x55). And who is defending the status quo? Yeah, the Democrats.
Conclusion: Only losers want election reform, but only the winners have the power to do it.
- Z
2: Usually I stay away from politics, but here's something to chew on.
Both major political parties have diverse, complex, and often contradictory platforms that go far beyond the simplistic conservative/liberal split. What is interesting is how they take sides when an issue is not addressed by the traditional party platform.
To whit: the electoral college. Republicans typically support it, and Democrats typically oppose it. Both sides can come up with long lists of lofty ideals that support/oppose it, but what it comes down to for both sides is that the electoral college elected a Republican twice in a row.
In the electoral college, most states use the Winner Takes All method but two states [Maine (D x4) and Nebraska (R x5)] use an alternate approach that arguably gives better direct representation. The Democratic Party proposed switching Colorado (R x9) to the new system in 2004, and failed.
Now it seems Republicans are all about more direct representation in the electoral college, but only in California (D x55). And who is defending the status quo? Yeah, the Democrats.
Conclusion: Only losers want election reform, but only the winners have the power to do it.
- Z
joshua - 08/29/07 12:24
Actually the irony is that if GWB hadn't won Ohio, he would have lost the electoral college but won the popular vote by 3.5 million. I can't recall how large of a difference was represented in the popular vote in 2000 but I don't remember it being larger than 3.5 million on Gore's side.
This is the major problem - its obvious, and we've spoken about this plenty of times, that when there is a big discrepency between the popular vote and the electoral college the entire system's credibility is called into question, and rightly so.
I think elimination of the electoral college, or modifications of the rules, would make things very interesting. After all, in 2004 40% of NYS voted for President Bush. Being one of the states with the largest number of electoral votes, distributing these votes in proportion to the popular vote would make things very, very interesting indeed.
I'd be interested in reading a study, if there was one out there, that would determine the outcome of the presidential elections in the past had the electoral college votes been in proportion to the percentage of the popular votes, state by state.
Actually the irony is that if GWB hadn't won Ohio, he would have lost the electoral college but won the popular vote by 3.5 million. I can't recall how large of a difference was represented in the popular vote in 2000 but I don't remember it being larger than 3.5 million on Gore's side.
This is the major problem - its obvious, and we've spoken about this plenty of times, that when there is a big discrepency between the popular vote and the electoral college the entire system's credibility is called into question, and rightly so.
I think elimination of the electoral college, or modifications of the rules, would make things very interesting. After all, in 2004 40% of NYS voted for President Bush. Being one of the states with the largest number of electoral votes, distributing these votes in proportion to the popular vote would make things very, very interesting indeed.
I'd be interested in reading a study, if there was one out there, that would determine the outcome of the presidential elections in the past had the electoral college votes been in proportion to the percentage of the popular votes, state by state.
metalpeter - 08/27/07 20:20
The thing about this country is we are not a democrocy we are a representive democrcy. Basiclly the people have no control we pick people to have control for us and then they do what ever they want. If they have morals then they try to get done what the people who elected them elected them for, but often they follow who paid for them to run or even special interest groups. The electoral college is an example of indirect Democraticy but I can understand why people want it. It helps fight fraud. Say I'm running and in Buffalo, New York, Albany and Rochester I get the votes of everyone who died in that year then it doesn't matter that I got 100,000 (or any number) more then my enemy because I only get so many points. But I'm sure there are better ways to stop illegal votes.
But here is one of the problems with it. Lets say (e:josh) was running for president and in NY he is leading and people on TV see that so they don't vote cause it doesn't matter since there guy say (e:ajay) can't win so josh gets all the points an ajay gets nothing. But if those people would have voted then the proportion the ajay would have been behind josh would be much lower and he would be closer. Just the opposite is true also if someone gets 99% of the votes in a state it doesn't matter how many more people voted for them cause the only get the points. That is why you can win the popular vote and not become president it doesn't make any sense.
There is another reason why it should be gotten rid of and that is so you can have more then 2 people running for president. Currently all 3rd party people do is take voters away form some one else and cause them to lose states that the 3rd party can't win. I will use my self as an example Yes I liked Ross Perot and voted for him but all that did was take votes away from someone else and I'm sure a lot of people did that (i hope I'm remembering right that he was 3rd party). But if it is most votes wins then a 3rd party guy or gal could win because they could get the most votes. I'm not saying it would happen but it sure seems like a much more fair way of doing things.
The thing about this country is we are not a democrocy we are a representive democrcy. Basiclly the people have no control we pick people to have control for us and then they do what ever they want. If they have morals then they try to get done what the people who elected them elected them for, but often they follow who paid for them to run or even special interest groups. The electoral college is an example of indirect Democraticy but I can understand why people want it. It helps fight fraud. Say I'm running and in Buffalo, New York, Albany and Rochester I get the votes of everyone who died in that year then it doesn't matter that I got 100,000 (or any number) more then my enemy because I only get so many points. But I'm sure there are better ways to stop illegal votes.
But here is one of the problems with it. Lets say (e:josh) was running for president and in NY he is leading and people on TV see that so they don't vote cause it doesn't matter since there guy say (e:ajay) can't win so josh gets all the points an ajay gets nothing. But if those people would have voted then the proportion the ajay would have been behind josh would be much lower and he would be closer. Just the opposite is true also if someone gets 99% of the votes in a state it doesn't matter how many more people voted for them cause the only get the points. That is why you can win the popular vote and not become president it doesn't make any sense.
There is another reason why it should be gotten rid of and that is so you can have more then 2 people running for president. Currently all 3rd party people do is take voters away form some one else and cause them to lose states that the 3rd party can't win. I will use my self as an example Yes I liked Ross Perot and voted for him but all that did was take votes away from someone else and I'm sure a lot of people did that (i hope I'm remembering right that he was 3rd party). But if it is most votes wins then a 3rd party guy or gal could win because they could get the most votes. I'm not saying it would happen but it sure seems like a much more fair way of doing things.
jason - 08/27/07 16:24
Yes, yes, it's about the time to let the gamesmanship begin! The most important thing, and the only real important goal is to attain and keep power.
The thing I find most insulting is that the parties pretty much proudly out themselves as hypocrites, using each others' arguments depending on their relative strength. You see it all the time nowadays, and we will continue to see it. Turnabout is fair play, it seems, and the fanbois pile right on top of it.
I agree that doing this proportional electoral college vote thing state-by-state is just not a good idea, but I'm also not a lawyer and can't say what the recourse is. Maybe it's time to relegate "flyover" country to the worthless status everyone on the coasts wants for it. That certainly would ensure that one party ruled from now until the end of time. Depending on who we root for, that is either a no brainer or an outrage, damn the hypocrisy.
Yes, yes, it's about the time to let the gamesmanship begin! The most important thing, and the only real important goal is to attain and keep power.
The thing I find most insulting is that the parties pretty much proudly out themselves as hypocrites, using each others' arguments depending on their relative strength. You see it all the time nowadays, and we will continue to see it. Turnabout is fair play, it seems, and the fanbois pile right on top of it.
I agree that doing this proportional electoral college vote thing state-by-state is just not a good idea, but I'm also not a lawyer and can't say what the recourse is. Maybe it's time to relegate "flyover" country to the worthless status everyone on the coasts wants for it. That certainly would ensure that one party ruled from now until the end of time. Depending on who we root for, that is either a no brainer or an outrage, damn the hypocrisy.
james - 08/27/07 15:25
No, this has nothing to do with direct representation or popular elections or real election reform. This has to do with which party wants to be in power in 2008. California will not go for any of the GOP candidates in 2008. But in this new system 20 of CA's 55 electoral votes will go to the Republicans. That is one hell of a deficit for the Dems to make up and probably would not win the election. This is just a power grab, knocking out the biggest bloc of voters for Dems.
The electoral collage has to go, but doing it state by state is a stupid way to do it. If they do it and Mitt Romney is President there sure as hell wont be any movement to split Texas or other large GOP strongholds.
And Governor Schwartzeneger, a Republican, opposes this reform as well. So it isn't GOP vs. Dems on this issue as a rule.
No, this has nothing to do with direct representation or popular elections or real election reform. This has to do with which party wants to be in power in 2008. California will not go for any of the GOP candidates in 2008. But in this new system 20 of CA's 55 electoral votes will go to the Republicans. That is one hell of a deficit for the Dems to make up and probably would not win the election. This is just a power grab, knocking out the biggest bloc of voters for Dems.
The electoral collage has to go, but doing it state by state is a stupid way to do it. If they do it and Mitt Romney is President there sure as hell wont be any movement to split Texas or other large GOP strongholds.
And Governor Schwartzeneger, a Republican, opposes this reform as well. So it isn't GOP vs. Dems on this issue as a rule.
Grats Z - I'm sort of stunned that they would do this, but take it and run!
I know the feeling about the whole "opposite of where I work". It looked like work was going to buy me an iPhone, but that kind of fell apart. Given that I had to buy my own laptop, that's actually what I kind of expected.
Lucky bastard, that (e:zobar).
Cool, Z. Enjoy!
Yeah but ... you know when somebody's all, 'my work just bought me an iPhone' and you're all 'where the Hell do you work?' Wherever it is, where I work is the opposite of that in pretty much every way.
- Z
Boo hoo. My job gives me the cool phone for free.