Where is my invasion of privacy survellience?

I just watched a YouTube video on a fight. I am logged into my Google account so Google knows exactly who I am. I post through Google. I have an android phone and I turn on every single invasion of privacy type feature. I have used it for years. I use gmail for my mail account. I search for things on Google all the time. I do that many many times a day for years. Yet to my surprise before watching the video I was shown a commercial for a Mercedes. WTF. I have never bought a new car in my entire life. I only buy used cars. My current car is only eight years old. I always drive my cars until there are end of life. Why am I being shown a commercial for a Mercedes. I can certainly afford one but I would never buy one. Why does Google with all its invasion of privacy opportunities not know this. What kind of crap system do they have. Where is the invasion of privacy that I have been promised. I hope one day to be shown commercials for things that I want. I don't want to see this commercial. It has no effect on me. It is a waste of money for the advertiser. Please Google do a better job of invading my privacy in the future.

Trump not getting security briefing

There are complaints about Trump not getting security briefing and how terrible that is. The people giving the briefing can be used to control the actions of the government. The briefing presents the views of people who work as bureaucrats to the leader. The people presenting the views can manipulate the leader by present false or misleading information. The security briefings can be used to control the leader.


This has actually recently happened. One of the presidents decided to invade Iraq because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Where did he learn about this? From the security briefings. Why did he decide to invade? Because of the security briefings. Turned out the information was wrong. See how the bureaucrats controlled the leader with the security briefings. I am sure its very bad Trump does not go to the briefing but bad for who? Perhaps just the people who want to control the leader.

Fake news idiots

There are a number of stories recently about how fake news is being used to manipulate people. People are not listening to real news but instead get their news from fake news sources. The people warning about the fake news are the people who generate the alleged real news. Such a warning makes no sense because the people who are getting their news from the alleged fake news sites do not follow the alleged real news sites so would not be in a position to heed the warning about fake news. This shows how out of touch the alleged real news providers are.

69 not as fun as advertised

The main problem with 69 is that there are alignment problems.

The cock ends up with the bottom on the top of the mouth away from the tongue. So the tongue is directly against the top of the cock. That is not the action side. The bottom is the action side. That is against the roof of the mouth. There is no direct simulation there. Using the tongue on that side would be possible but that would mean rubbing the bottom of the tongue against the cock. The tongue has way more power on the top side than the bottom so that is just a write off.

For the clit there are alignment problems too. The hood covers a clit facing downwards. The tongue due to the alignment is licking downwards. That re-inforces pushing the hood over the clit. Getting the clit working is already hard enough so putting a hood over is a bad idea. Again a solution could be using the bottom of the tongue to lick up but that is not the direction that the tongue has power so is not effective.

Teaching Kids Computer Programming

There are a lot of calls from people leading tech companies to teach computer programming earlier in in schools. Well that is a great idea, there is a problem with implementing that. Computer programmer get paid way more than teachers. Why would a person who can program computers get a job as a teacher. How can this be addressed. I think tech companies should have programs where their programmers are send to schools to teach programming for a school year. This would provide a great source of talented and motivated people who have a solid understanding of programming to the school system. Just saying schools should tech programming without have a practical way to get teachers for that is not going to be successful. The tech industry should put it money where it mouth is.

An Inconvenient Truth

Something has been bothering me about people who promote the idea that humans are causing climate change that will destroy the ecosystem of earth. These people fly around and give talks about how the actions of humans are destroying the planet. I have finally figured out what was bothering me. These people are flying around discussing how we are destroying the planet by burning too much fossil fuels. The are flying around. They are flying. Flying uses the most fossil fuel per kilometer travelled. That is what is bothering me. They are saying the most import issue is climate change and how we are causing that by burning fossil fuels but they travel using a machine that is the most inefficient with respect to fossil fuels. If the people who are saying we should reduce fossil fuels cannot reduce their consumption of fossil fuels because it is inconvenient why should we? I think people who promote the idea that we are destroying the planet by burning too much fossil fuels should pledge to never fly again and instead use teleprescence. Otherwise there claims cannot be respected. They cannot be thought leaders without be action leaders.

Why government backdoors in computer don't work

Computers need to be told everything. They cannot work without being told exactly what to do. Every detail must be present. In order to put a backdoor in a computer you need to tell the computer how the backdoor works. Exactly how it works. In particular you need to tell the computer what password the people accessing the backdoor will use. That is needed so when people access the backdoor the computer can compare the provided password with the password that is expected. That means that for every computer you ship, the 'secret' password is encoded in the computer. That means that the bad guys can buy the computer and take it apart and analyze the code to find the password. Then the bad guys know the password and can use the backdoor. Calling the backdoor, 'The Government Backdoor', does not prevent anyone from accessing the backdoor. The name is a false name and causes people to have assumptions about the back doors that is not true.

** I have simplified this slightly since backdoors can be implemented with more sophisticated algorithms than passcode because that is more understandable. The other approaches suffer the same problems but describing them in that terms obscures the key point.

i love fat

what do i love about women. Nice tits. Nice ass. Sexy round belly. Sexy hips. So hot. Turns me on so much.Mmmmm. I love the placement of fat. That makes me hot. How their fat is placed on their body. Its not just the fat. It has to be placed nicely. A pile of fat is not nice. Sexy fat lips is hot. It makes me marry them and loose lots of money. The fat. Where the fat is on their body and how it is shaped. That fat is place so hotly I want it. I will put up with the peice of shit that is under the piles of fat. Yummy, you are so sexy I will throw away my life on your nice shaped and placed fat. Men are not hot. They don't place their fat in the right way. Women know how to place their fat to make me do stuipid things. I want that sexy display of fat. Shake your fat titles in my face so I loose my mind. That fat is sooooooo hot. I want you, you spawn of satan worshipping hotness with just the right fat.

Taxes paid by the Rich

I was watching a video that is was unfair that rich people pay more money in taxes than poor people. So I googled that and found http://www.itep.org/whopays which says rich people pay a smaller percentage of the overall income in taxes. The first video must be about the actual amount of money paid rather than the percentage. The quote was the poorest people pay 10.9 percent of their income and the richest pay 5.4 percent of their income. Then you have the other dynamic that the rich earn more of the income year after year. That means that for every dollar extra the rich each the goverment gets an extra 5.4 cents and for every dollar less that the poor people earn the government looses 10.9 cents. As income transfers from poor people to rich people the amount of money the goverment collect must be decreasing in terms of share of the ecomony. That bring up the question does the tax system existing to extract money from each person or to extract money from the flow of income. If it exists to extra money from each person then the complain of rich people that they pay more actual dollars is valid but if it exists to extract money from the flow of income then the complaint is not valid.

If one was designing a goverment and need to obtain money to run the goverment, how would you obtain that money. Each year, the people in the country produce products and services. The goverment wants to take a portion of that yearly to run. It would make sense to take a portion of the overall production rather than a fixed portion from each person. That way if the goverment took 10 percent of the overall that would be 10 percent of the products and services of the country. If the goverment took a fair portion from each person depending on how the income was divided the amount of money obtained would vary depending on the division of the income.

Let's imaging a fair system. Say the country has two people in it, Richie and Poorie. They both earn 100 dollars a year. The government taxes them each 10 dollars. That is 10 percent of their income. That is fair. Next year, Richie is smart and works hard and Poorie and lazy and does not work very hard. Richie earns 190 dollars and Poorie earns 10 dollars. In the fair system Poorie would pay 10 dollar and Richie would pay 10 dollars. All of Poorie's income would go to the government and very little of Richie's income would. Moral or not that is not practical. What is even more interesting is that in the real word income discrepency is way larger so a fair system would never work unless you let the goverment run out of money. Maybe that is why the deficits are always occurring. Where is the goverment getting the money to borrow. From Richie. That's funny.

You say Erectile Disfunction; I say erectile function

So there is this thing now about erectile disfunction now. Some men are not able to give the dog a bone. The men are erectile disfunctional. Lets think about erections. They are part of sexual reproduction. This is a very old process in organisms and pre-dates human. Men that try to reproduce with infertile females reduce there chances of having offspring in the next generation. Evolutionarily successful men would prefer to f the hotties and not the notties. Image men that are turned on by grannies. They might get to bone a lot but they won't be having any offspring off the grannies. Evolutionarily successful people will have genes for preferring women that manifest characteristics of fertile females.

That brings us to erectile disfunction. Older men trying to bone older women who are not fertile. It makes sense that they would not be raising the bone for women that display characteristics of being unfertile. That is not erectile disfunction. That is erectile function.

Loyalty Check

When I was in relationships, I found that something that I used to never understand would occur. The women would ask me to do non-logical or pointless actions. Then I would be like,k "Why would I do that", "What is the reason", or "That doesn't make any sense". Then they would get mad at me. That happened for years. Typically sensible people would get in situations then as me to do bizarre acts. Finally I realized what that is, that is a loyalty check. When a relationship is based on emotion then people who depend on that do loyalty checks to see if your emotional motivation will override your logical motivations. Once I realized that then I noticed that that occurs on lots of places in life. Loyalty checks not only help the controller understand how well the followers are following but can be used to build a habit in the follower.  Start out with small loyalty check then build to bigger ones. That can be used to build groups that have a common purpose. Anyway after I realized that then my logical mind was able to wrap illogical request in the logical interpretation that it was a loyalty check and whether the action made any sense did not matter, that value was in demonstrating loyal. So then instead of being bother by the illogical request, this interpretation made the request logical.

Why prostitution can never be legal like other jobs

Let's image a world where prostitution is legal in the way other jobs are legal. For example, it could be legal like being a secretary is legal or being a hair dresser. Once it it fully legal then companies can hire prostitutes as employees. They could job interview and advertise for employees and hire them with professionally written employment contracts and have yearly performance reviews. The employees could get good health care and benefits. What is the problem? Every dude in a small company that is going to hire a secretary is going to have the job description be answer phone, take dictation, arrange meetings, blow me on request, ensure office supplies are ordered, water the plants, and handle bill payment. Since prostitution in entirely legal then you can write jobs that require work performed while being a prostitute. Then if there were no people who wanted the job because it was disgusting they could apply for foreign workers to fill the position since no citizens wanted the jobs.

Fried Chicken is Evil and Delicious

How bad ass are humans. We kill chickens and eat their flesh. That is not good enough though so we coat it in a batter made of eggs and fry that and then eat it. We are so bad ass that eating the dead body of the chicken is not enough we have to coat it in a paste made of their dead babies and then eat that. And its delicious. From the chickens perspective it must be a horror show. Not only do they die but we kill their babies and coat them with it then eat that. Humans are bad ass. It would be funny to watch someone being politically correct while eating fried chicken. The contrast would be hilarious. Hey you, eat your dead baby coated fried flesh and talk about trivial bullshit. You are on point. Anyway friend chicken is delicious and humans are bad ass.

Transparent Attempts at Negative Publicity

I was wondering if the transparent attempts at negative publicity by established interested is effective. I keep seeing but when I see the effect on me is to be surprised that anyone would think that the motivation is not obvious and self serving. I recently saw a story about AirBnb. They described how some users had their home trashed or were murdered. I am sure that happened but problems like that happen without AirBnb. There was a story about Uber where an Uber driver raped someone. Uber does not cause people to rape other people. Why was the story not about the brand of car that the Uber drive was in linked to the rape. Why was the city not linked to the rape. Random association between things and events is not significant unless there is a statistical study about the probabilities of the events occuring in specific circumstances. Does this work on people? I become irritated because the story becomes uninteresting due to the underlying attempt at manipulation. My time was wasted.

Comminucation Channels

When people talk there are two communication channels present. One is emotional and one is practical. For example, what asking to take an item from a person the functional part would be communicating that you want to get the item; the emotional part could be added to the voice to communicate anger or friendliness. I like realizing this and decide whether I want to respond to the parts separately.

Computer Systems Vs Legal Systems

Computer systems are made up of computers which process algorithms in order to achieve a results. The legal system is made up of courts that intrepret laws in order to decide how to impose justice. Both are systems where a processer interprets rules and applies them to input to produce an output. For computer systems programmers write programs. For the legal system, laywers write laws.

Similar problems are experienced by both systems. For computer system once a program is shipped changing behaviour is very difficult because of backwards compatibility and user expectations. For the legal system, once a law is established change the law is difficult because expectations have already been set for standards of behaviour that might retroactively change an act from legal to illegal causing problem for society.

The legal system falls short of computer systems in a number of ways. For computer system the programmer can write the program and then test the program with expected input to see if the system behaves as expected. This is a very important part of the development cycle that helps ensure that the program works as expected. Without this kind of testing the program most likely will not work correctly. The legal system has no such process. This is a very big flaw. Based on experience with computer systems it should be expected that laws do not work as intended.

Programmer have access to debugged which can be used to see how programs process the input to produce the output. Not only do debuggers help make the program better they make the programmer better. Writing rules is a skill that is greatly enhanced by observation of the rules in action. Programmers that have never used a debugger would be very poor programmers. Lawyers in the legal system have no such ability to analyze the effect of their rules on real life cases. One would expect lawyers to be unskilled at writing rules compared to programmers that learned programming with debuggers.

The software development life cycle includes a workflow where customer can report problems with the expected behaviour of the computer programs. Bugs will be recorded and distributed to programmers so the algorithm can be updated to behave correctly. Without this feedback mechanism programs would over time become very difficult to use because of incorrect behaviour. The legal system has no such workflow to pass experience applying the legal system back to the lawyers designing it.

I wonder what the legal system would look like if it was designed and implemented like programs.