lookin

PS: I still don't understand all this stuff, so I think I'll just return the sandbox to Daddy and let him carry on from here.

Sorry for the confusion, MsGuy. I think I went down a slightly different rat hole, and didn't explain my trip very well. Starting from the top, an admission: I hate delivering red X's (or blue question marks for Mac users) to anyone who reads my posts. They usually arise when I use an image that, for one reason or another, does not like to be called up by using the MER 'insert image' button. I find an image I really like, it even shows up in the preview, and then Bam!, it turns into a red X as soon as I hit 'post'. Sometimes I can find the image on a different, friendlier, site and sometimes I have to start all over. That's what happened with the guy sitting on the flag in a post I made a few days ago. It was exactly the image I wanted, but the site where it was located did not want me to insert a call to the image itself, so all anyone could see was the dreaded red X. Here's what I got when I hit 'insert image': Sometimes the image shows up, and sometimes it's just a red X. I could have just hit the 'insert link' button but then the reader doesn't see the image itself, but rather a link that needs to be clicked. I prefer not to use those, as it requires the reader to be logged in to see the image. Someone may be kind enough to read my post in the first place, but I don't like to add to the burden by requiring him to log in. (It's different with Zipperzone's image links, as they're well worth logging in for, but I figure folks are likely to pass my stuff by unless I make it easy for them.) Here's what I got when I hit the 'insert link' button: (If you're logged in, you may see the image; if you're not, you won't.) Flag guy So I was delighted when I thought I had found a workaround. It was thanks to Zipperzone that I first discovered that I could call up one of his images after he had linked to it, and after I had right-clicked on it to find its URL. Apparently, when one links to an image, its original off-site URL is replaced by another URL which is hosted by the MER site itself. And that MER URL does not mind being inserted as an image that can be seen without logging in. So I first linked to the site with the flag-guy's image using the MER 'insert link' button; that caused a link to the image to be inserted in my post. I then clicked the link and opened the image. When the image was open, I right-clicked on it, found the new URL that MER had generated, and inserted that image into my post. Voila! I now had an image that someone could see without logging in. So it seems like a three-step process will do the trick: (1) 'insert link' to the URL of the unfriendly off-site image, (2) log in and right-click on the image to capture MER's friendly URL, and (3) 'insert image' using MER's friendly URL. Last thing I tried, now that I had MER's friendly URL, was to see if I could delete the link to the other site, and retain only the image. It turned out I couldn't. For some reason, the link to the other site still needs to be present, even if I'm using the image with the MER URL. Don't know why, but there it is. Something to ponder on a cold winter evening in front of the fire.

Music to my ears! However, it does seem that big business, whose interests are likely shared by the "top 1%", has a chokehold on the government and, as Hitoallusa says, is not about to give it up. While our politicians still need the votes of the hoi polloi, it seems the best way to get those votes is through ridiculously expensive campaigns that need to be funded by big business and the top 1%. Typically, the only choice voters have these days is between one beholden candidate and another beholden candidate. Until that pattern is broken, I think it's only going to get more pronounced. Democracy in this country appears to be drifting away from the one man-one vote model the country was founded on, and which we encourage other nations to adopt. Seems like we need to take care of our own knitting first. /rant

No, not exactly. I also learned something new the other day (how to post a picture that wouldn't permit linking and gave the dreaded red X), and I must have just been projecting. Thanks for letting me know what you learned. One of these days, I'll get around to reading the 'What You Need to Know About Photo Sharing' and will probably find the answers to a lot of stuff that's been eluding me.

Did somebody call?

If you're serious, you might be able to find Coke made with sugar. It comes in bottles from Mexico. In California, some Mexican grocery stores carry it, and I understand that Costco and (shudder) Walmart do too. Check the ingredient label to make sure It's the Real Thing ©. It's more expensive but I think it tastes much better, just like it did when I was growing up.

If you mean what I think, I tried that out the other day with the guy sitting on the flag. You can get the uploaded image to show, but you need to have the link showing too. If you erase the link, the image goes too, even though you have its URL. But you should be able to link to the image in another post, and have the image show without the link. That is what you learned, right? If not, please excuse the instrusion. I'll show myself out.

Happy Birthday to you! And I think I saw that DW's birthday was yesterday, so Happy Birthday to him too! And a very Happy Unbirthday to everybody else!

Ricko, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Just be sure to use a good moisturizer and plenty of mousse.

That is scary. What's also scary is how much money politicians need to spend to get elected. I read that the 2008 Presedential/Congressional election cost $5.3 billion. Gone are the days when all you needed to get elected was a snazzy button.

ROLF! (I actually got Rolfed many years ago, the first five sessions anyway. The pain was made bearable by the fact that the practioner was cute, smooth and nicely muscled, with thick auburn curls ringed around his adorable face. However, he allowed as how the sixth session was the one where he would be shoving his index fingers up my nostrils and prying the fascia away from my eye sockets from the inside. I expect he still has my pants and penny loafers. )

Sorry, MsGuy, the first time I looked at the pic after I posted, I got a blue box (Mac version of red X) too. But it's shown up every time since. I'm posting it again, as I think it's worth a second look, but this time I'm going to try uploading it and then linking to it. As I said earlier, "Might as well enjoy it while it's here!"

Same here! ( Although I'm still hoping for something on a quickie in the passenger lounge. )

Got it, TY. Thanks. I know vaguely what 2257 is, but had no inkling of the other corrals that are already in place. Have to agree then. Who needs it! (Well, except for the folks who must figure it will drive extra traffic to their site, and are willing to pay a premium price for it.) It felt odd being, even temporarily, odd man out on this issue as I'm probably as chary of internet control as anyone. I've long felt that there's going to be much more control of the internet as the years go by, both by government and by business. And by whoever else can figure out how to get their hands around its digital neck. I think those who are scheming for control today are a fairly weak advance guard for those who will follow. There's just too much power and money involved for the raptors not to be interested. I've always thought they would come with data mining, and analysis and control of content and communication flow, rather than something as easy as a domain extension. Ah, well, I guess .xxx is another arrow in the quiver. I've actually been feeling pretty blessed to live in a time when there's as much internet freedom as we have today. Might as well enjoy it while it's here!

Nicely done folks! We are all still inside the tent pissing out. (Still, mind where you stand. )

Everywhere I went, all I heard was people talking about the Palm Springs Weekend. Who was that adorable guy on Lucky's arm? I heard the dinner was to die for! Cher was in the second row, but left during the curtain call. Did Oz really arrive by helicopter? Charlie had to leave early to pick up Andre Agassi. Someone said they're going to bottle the pool water and sell it on eBay. Who was wearing the diamond and emerald thong? Elton was so miffed he wasn't invited! Did someone really sneak in a phone and shoot a video? They had to send to LA for more Dom Pérignon. Don't know if all of this is gospel, but I sure hope the rumor about everyone being on Ellen this week turns out to be true. Especially if they bring back Chord Overstreet.

Thank you all for the logical framework and economic underpinnings of why we're all getting screwed so much these days. Here I was thinking it was just a run of bad luck.

I think it's a toss-up.

Thanks, DM, for your post! I've been waiting for days for some juicy tidbits from the Palms Springs Do. Glad to hear your perspective. Plus, a 'bread and butter' letter is always a nice touch, and will no doubt appeal to many of the higher-class posters here. Of course, you've already got us lower-class posters covered nicely.

I learned that if I made the minimum payment on my credit card, it would take me twelve years to pay it off and cost me almost double my original purchase. The info is right out there in plain sight. Don't recall seeing it before, so maybe the consumer financial reforms are starting to kick in.

I'm as leery of the powers that be as the next guy, but I'm still not sure how this would convert from a voluntary designation to a mandatory one. Granted, I'd be cautious about signing up for it if I were a site owner, even though the guy who set it up seems to think some will pay a premium for the privilege. But no one is making anyone sign up for it. At least not yet. And that's where my question comes in: How would a government make someone sign up for the .xxx domain? Would there be some kind of Porn Czar who decided what it took for a site to be included? Would a single x-rated post by a single poster be enough to mandate the .xxx designation? What if the post were removed in an hour? What if a hacker got a nipple shot splashed across the Vatican website, or an altar boy showed the outline of a morning woody? With content changing so quickly on most websites, I'm just not sure how the process would work. It seems the problem for a website owner would arise if he actually wanted to have an x-rated site, but did not want the .xxx designation. I'm trying to think through why that would be, unless to avoid the fifty dollar premium. Of course, 500 domain names would put a crimp in the old pocketbook, and one may have to consider selling some off. But that's more of a business decision than one of censorship. I believe movie producers go through this same kind of evaluation when deciding the tradeoffs among content, film rating, and audience size. But, unlike a movie, where the content is fixed at the time of rating, a domain name doesn't necessarily have any content at the time it's registered, and who's to say www.bigdicks.com won't turn out to be a website about rude drivers? I really value the discussion here, as no doubt I'm still behind the curve on this one.

While I can't see as far down the road as these guys can, it seems like it would be a pretty messy undertaking for a government to start classifying sites as .xxx. What criteria would they use? Maybe Google's already coming up with an algorithm that would assign a Porn Index to all websites. I notice they've been crawling around here lately. Whoops! They're here now. Better keep it clean fellas!

And it's your Lucky Day! Pisces Hope it's a very happy one.