Sorry for the downtime but I’ve been working to move the site to a new host and upgrade. I accidentally forwarded all email to /dev/null so if you had sent me a personal email please resend it.

Changes:

• Wordpress upgrade to 2.5.1
• New hosting provider
• New domain: blogofbile.com
• landofbile.com/blog/whatever will still work as it’s redirected to blogofbile.com
• New javascript based menus on the main page
• New slideshow for images. Any links to images on a page or post will be part of the same slideshow.
• New Quotes page, I need to transfer all my quotes over and rework the layout still.
• I’ve used a plugin to auto tag all old posts without tags. Many don’t make all that much sense but it’s not all that important.
• A new feature to let logged in users add tags to articles.
• Ajax comment editting
• a WP plugin to catch broken links. I’ll slowly clean those up as I have the time.
• Misc backend things to make my life easier.
• A mobile version. If you use a mobile web browser you should get a very simple version of the page without the advanced comment form.
• A contact form.
• An auto suggest tags plugin. (bottom of write post page)
• random theme changes.

I’m not done with changing everything or tweaking things but it’s usable. I think the RSS feeds will still work but I’m not sure yet. If you come across any issues please email at bile at landofbile dot com or use the contact form.

http://www.reuters.com/…

A roommate-finding site cannot require users to disclose their sexual orientation, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday, in the latest skirmish over whether anti-discrimination rules apply to the Web.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Roommates.com, which obliges users to list their sexual orientation, was different than Internet sites where people can volunteer or withhold personal information.

To inquire electronically about sexual orientation would not be different from asking people in person or by telephone if they were black or Jewish before conducting business, the panel said in an 8-3 ruling that partly overturns a lower federal court decision.

“If such screening is prohibited when practiced in person or by telephone, we see no reason why Congress would have wanted to make it lawful to profit from it online,” 9th Circuit chief judge Alex Kozinski wrote. “Not only does Roommate ask these questions, Roommate makes answering the discriminatory questions a condition of doing business.”

Can someone please tell me why sexism is allowed and orientationism is not? How exactly are these people “obliged?” oblige: 1. To constrain by physical, legal, social, or moral means. 2. To make indebted or grateful. 3. To make indebted or grateful. No one is requiring them to use the service. There is craigslist and dozens of other roommate sites. Are they going to outlaw people from asking each other in person next? Or making a descision on that information?

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

Not as good or as long as I had hoped but it helps get the word out. It was fairly neutral except the “he’s not going to win the presidency comment made so matter of fact.” I was also disappointed that it ended so abruptly. Should have allowed Trever to explain his comment a bit perhaps.

http://www.engadget.com/…

Look, kiddie porn and terrorism are bad. Obvious. But what better way for a government to push through controversial legislation quickly than to harness their emotive properties? After all, what self-respecting member of the US House of Representatives would vote against legislation called Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online, or SAFE? Only 2 it turns out (Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia and Rep. presidential candidate, Ron Paul) with 409 members voting yesterday in favor. The new bill requires everyone (that includes you and Starbucks) offering an open WiFi connection to the public to be on the lookout for report known “illegal images” and “obscene” cartoons and drawings. The reporting requirement extends to cover social networking sites, ISPs, and email providers. Failing to dutifully report what you’ve seen (or haven’t seen but are unwittingly complicit in) could leave your data seized and in debt from fines of up to $300,000.

H.R.3791.EH can be found here.

The bill requires those who “obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2)” report it to the CyberTipline. Paragraph 2 refers to Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 110, Sections “2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2252B, or 2260 that involves child pornography” and Chapter 71, Section 1446A. The Engadget article is a bit misleading in that it’s all in regard to children but the definitions are no less clear. Section 1446A reads: an offense is “Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawling, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that — (1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene; or (2) (A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and (B) lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;” This is very vague and highly subjective. The fact it can be something not even related to an actual human makes this far worse. At this point what would be the difference between a cartoon and the image in your mind or a description on paper or spoken? It’s a victimless crime. A thought crime. The fact that they have now tacked on requiring others to nark on people adds a whole new level to this. Those affected have been drafted by the nanny state morality police. The fact it carries penalties also implies to me that they are considering not narking aiding and abetting.

http://www.nolanchart.com/…

http://blog.wired.com/…

[The messages] … all linked YouTube searches for “ron paul” which results in the usual electoral propaganda you’d expect 372 days before an election.

Later in the day it changed however. With the usual addition of bayes poison, randomness in the subject lines and a tinyurl and no doubt some additional sending resources since they just burned a load, this campaign moved up a gear.

This is trivial stuff as I’m sure you can appreciate, but that tinyurl did catch my attention:

tinyurl 345s6g -redirects-> 301 Moved Permanently -to-> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeHWW5gbc0w

“This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.”
Now I have no idea what that video was (and frankly dear, I don’t give a damn!) but what struck me is that this would be a really efficient way to remove your competitions videos from youtube. I’m not picking on YouTube here, I believe almost any social site would do the same.

I hadn’t really considered this but it’s a very clever trick. I’m hopeful that YouTube will realize this isn’t the Paul campaign or the owners of the independent videos. If these companies allow this spam to affect the Paul online community the MSM will use it to validate their labeling of us as spammers.

http://news.com.com/…

For a while there, the fate of the Republican counterpart to last month’s CNN-YouTube debates among Democratic presidential contenders was looking pretty bleak. But it appears that the event in St. Petersburg, Fla., will, indeed take place–albeit a few months later than planned.

CNN and YouTube on Monday issued a brief press release announcing that the candidates will be invited to take the Mahaffey Theatre’s stage on November 28. As of Sunday night, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani had agreed to show up for the post-Thanksgiving event, but there was no immediate word on the others, a CNN spokeswoman said.

I wonder SaveTheDebate.com had anything to do with this? I’m glad it’s still going on. I’m not sure if it’s good or bad for Ron Paul. If more drop out then he can only be given more time in front of the camera. However, if his message isn’t spread far enough by then people may continue to write him off and unelectable because he is still generally unknown and not actually listen to what he has to say.