Fashion Board 4-6-04 to 5-7-04

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck
Complain much?

This post confirms that you will be the mouse in every exchange you have on this board. Congratulations, mouse.

TM

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
now that I've read through the chatter of the lst day and a half, the only topic I find worthy of another visit is paigow's disgust with the non-matching hair/bush combo. I had no idea that people felt strongly about this issue. I mean, isn't it a given that 50-80% (there is likely a geographical variance in the exact percentage - I'd guess the % is higher here in Texas, for example) of blonde women are bottle blondes? And why would blonde (really, light brown) pubes be somehow more appealing than darker ones? Why are darker ones "gross"? I find this odd. Enlighten me, please.

I thought we made it pretty clear -- men don't care. The difference between head hair and pubes is not remotely a deal-breaker.

As to which color is nicer, that depends on the woman, and the tone of her skin. But if the trim (relax, PP, I mean the way the hair is groomed) is right, then we're talking gradations of my-tee-fine.

Put more simply: Pussy, good.

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
MR can explain the technology, but I think if you post a picture from, say, playboy, your browser will send a request to playboy for the pic. IT will see that request, and not be able to tell that's it's different than if you visited teh site directly. So far as I can tell, my IT's porn filter has, for that reason, prevented me from seeing parts of your best posts.

Yes, if your IT department is looking, it doesn't matter whether the image shows up here or you click on the link and go to the site. The end result is the same. This is because though you see the picture here, it isn't hosted on our web site, it is still hosted on the site on which the poster found the picture in the first place.

So the only difference here is, if you provide a link and a spree, people can choose whether they want to explain something to the IT department or not.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Wouldn't your IT get the URL of the picture, and the site hosting it?

Asking because I really don't know, but I would think this would make pictures from certain sites problematic, whether they show unclothed parts or not.

I suppose. But I figure that I've never received notice from them for something posted here, while I know people at the firm who have been contacted because of sites visited with questionable (not porn) photos. I feel like they see that this site is visited a lot and ignore what gets posted here, but they check out individual sites more often.

And if they get the URL of the photo, wouldn't they get the link too?

TM

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by tmdiva
I don't really get it, either. Even the blondest natural blond will have pubes a shade or two darker because they don't get exposed as much. And some people have different colored hair in different places (like DS said).

I have dark blond hair (chemically assisted to reach the medium golden blond of my adolescence), but my pubes and eyebrows have always been medium brown, and my eyelashes dark brown.

tm

Likely story. Shall we just pass the bottle around?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck
While "she" may piss you off, I find her highly amusing.

Amusing in the same way as when a cat plays around with a mouse before killing and eating it.

For me, it is amusing in the same was as when a cuttlefish splays its arms and undergoes chameleon-like changes of colors as part of its mating ritual.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
now that I've read through the chatter of the lst day and a half, the only topic I find worthy of another visit is paigow's disgust with the non-matching hair/bush combo. I had no idea that people felt strongly about this issue. I mean, isn't it a given that 50-80% (there is likely a geographical variance in the exact percentage - I'd guess the % is higher here in Texas, for example) of blonde women are bottle blondes? And why would blonde (really, light brown) pubes be somehow more appealing than darker ones? Why are darker ones "gross"? I find this odd. Enlighten me, please.

I think it might be very important where a woman is a contortionist and is commonly seen by others with her head between her own thighs. In that situation, the contrast might be unappealing, in the same way it's unappealing when a woman's brows are many shades darker than her hair, or when she has gone too long without a touch-up.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
MR can explain the technology, but I think if you post a picture from, say, playboy, your browser will send a request to playboy for the pic. IT will see that request, and not be able to tell that's it's different than if you visited teh site directly. So far as I can tell, my IT's porn filter has, for that reason, prevented me from seeing parts of your best posts.

Got it. Nevermind, then. I just figured they could tell the difference. But who knew Ashcroft could get to us? The f-fuckin'-b.

TM

[dtb]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
I think it might be very important where a woman is a contortionist and is commonly seen by others with her head between her own thighs. In that situation, the contrast might be unappealing, in the same way it's unappealing when a woman's brows are many shades darker than her hair, or when she has gone too long without a touch-up.

Do one's eyelashes ever go gray? I can't think of an old person with gray eyelashes -- but I have never really focused on it. Anyone?

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Wouldn't your IT get the URL of the picture, and the site hosting it?

Asking because I really don't know, but I would think this would make pictures from certain sites problematic, whether they show unclothed parts or not.

Every company can do things differently, of course, but as far as I know, the answer to this question in most cases would be no.

If a company monitors their users'internet habits, the most it probably does is keeps a log of what URLs are requested from your computer. Thus, your visits to this sight would be logged in a simple text files as:

username;timestamp;http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...=&threadid=565 (or some similar format)

That's a pretty inconspicuous URL for those IT guys who monitor the logs.

Thus, the only way for your IT people to see what you are actually viewing is to cut and paste that link into their own browser. Now, if you clicked on a link to a picture, that data would show up in the log, since it's a unique data request from your browser. On the other hand, as far as I know, if the picture shows up on the page because the page is requesting data from an external source, the source of that picture can't be logged.

They could keep a local cache of the data if they really wanted to see what you see. Due to the tremendous amount of data storage space that would require, however, it's a safe bet that any firm/company with more than a handful of people isn't doing it. And those with fewer than a handful probably don't have the technical know-how or desire to do it.

Most small and mid-sized firms outsource their internet service and have no in-house data warehousing at all. Not even the URL logs. They would have to request the logs from their ISP if they wanted to make sure people aren't viewing prohibited sites.

Most really large companies/firms just have a list of blocked URLs/words that they run through a proxy. If the page gets through the proxy, the assumption is that it's safe for work. There is too much data to monitor it any other way.

The people at the most risk for internet monitoring are people who work at mid-size and larger firms that run all their web and e-mail traffic through their own servers and just buy bandwidth from a provider. If you have a "server room" in your firm, that means you. Those firms have the ability to closely monitor url logs and e-mail to see what you're up to. If the number of users is manageable, they can print out a log and glance at it to make sure no one is violating the internet use policy. Usually, though, the logs are only used when there is a report of abuse, i.e. your secretary notices you looking at porn and reports it.

The other way people get busted is if they fail to empty out their cache, cookies, and internet history before the IT guys do some work on their machine. I've heard of many people getting busted this way.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
And if they get the URL of the photo, wouldn't they get the link too?

The link is like text on the page, but your site has to retrieve the photo from the site that's hosting it, so they'll get its url if they're listing the sites you "visit." They could get the link if they wanted to extract links from the pages you visit, but that seems like too much work for most IT departments outside the NSA.

eta: Based on what MR said, my speculation is academic.

[leagleaze]

All true. It depends on what software they are using and how closely they are looking.

Obviously Burger's place is using software that enables them to block images, others might just be logging the main address, and others might be logging any links you look at.

It is really hard to know.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck
The other way people get busted is if they fail to empty out their cache, cookies, and internet history before the IT guys do some work on their machine. I've heard of many people getting busted this way.

If you befriend the IT folks, you can hear these stories about the partners.

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
This post confirms that you will be the mouse in every exchange you have on this board. Congratulations, mouse.

TM

Are you serious?

I love how you declare yourself the big man around here on every disagreement you have.

When you don't get your way or someone does something you don't like, you bitch and moan about it ad nauseum until the other person gets sick of you and gives up. At which time you declare yourself the winner of your virtual pissing match if you already haven't.

You're funny dude.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The link is like text on the page, but your site has to retrieve the photo from the site that's hosting it, so they'll get its url if they're listing the sites you "visit." They could get the link if they wanted to extract links from the pages you visit, but that seems like too much work for most IT departments outside the NSA.

eta: Based on what MR said, my speculation is academic.

Okay, I'm bored by all this techno-speak.

I apologize for raising the issue and retract my complaint. What TM said is right, with one slight modification -- tits or Michael Jackson should require a link.