born free

ffrrreee

Go away, she is fine

sssshhhhh !

DAMN OLDIES ..

he is ancient
but he gott the hottz for young girls


keep your daughters locked

Damn oldies ...

there is dis guy who flashes on the net
He is a creep
reminds me of my dad

keep your daughters safe

an indecent proposal

A young boy went up to his father and asked, "What is the difference between potentially and realistically?"

The father considered the question, then replied, "Go ask your mother if she would sleep with Robert Redford for a million dollars.
And ask your sister if she would sleep with Brad Pitt for the same.

When they've told you, come back and we'll talk."The boy went to his mother and asked, "Would you sleep with Robert Redford for a million dollars?" The mother replied, "Of course I would! I couldn't pass up an opportunity like that."

The boy then went to his sister and asked, "Would you sleep with Brad Pitt for a million dollars?" The sister replied, "Oh my God! I would just love to do that! I would be in heaven if I had that chance!"

The boy pondered this for a bit and went back to his dad. His father asked, "So could your mother and sister help you understand the difference between potentially and realistically?"

The boy replied, "Yes, potentially we're sitting on two million dollars, but realistically we're living with a couple of sluts."

http://deepinmymind.blogspot.com/

the majority are damn fools

Failures of crowd intelligence

In order to make his case, Surowiecki studies situations (such as rational bubbles) in which the crowd produces very bad judgment,

and argues that in these types of situations their cognition or cooperation failed because (in one way or another) the members of the crowd were too conscious of the opinions of others and began to emulate each other and conform rather than think differently.

Although he gives experimental details of crowds collectively swayed by a persuasive speaker, he says that the main reason that groups of people intellectually conform is that the system for making decisions has a systematic flaw.

He thinks that what happens when the decision making environment isn't set up to accept the crowd is that the benefits of individual judgments and private information are lost, and that the crowd can only do as well as its smartest member, rather than perform better (as he shows is otherwise possible). Detailed case histories of such failures include:

Too centralized: The Columbia shuttle disaster, which he blames on a hierarchical NASA management bureaucracy that was totally closed to the wisdom of low-level engineers.

Too divided: The U.S. Intelligence community failed to prevent the September 11, 2001 attacks partly because information held by one subdivision was not accessible by another. Surowiecki's argument is that crowds (of intelligence analysts in this case) work best when they choose for themselves what to work on and what information they need.

(He cites the SARS-virus isolation as an example in which the free flow of data enabled laboratories around the world to coordinate research without a central point of control.)

Too imitative: Where choices are visible and made in sequence, an "information cascade" can form in which only the first few decision makers gain anything by contemplating the choices available: once this has happened it is more efficient for everyone else to simply copy those around them.

the day i was born

i love my mom
i hate my dad

he found it funny to name me Jocks



What is the "Flag" button?
(i intend to post Hott babes, dont flag me please)

Postmark me instead

The Flag button is not censorship and it cannot be manipulated by angry mobs. Political dissent? Incendiary opinions? Just plain crazy? Bring it on.
This feature is called "Flag As Objectionable" and it's accessible via the Blogger Navbar. The "Flag?" button allows the blogging community to easily note questionable content, which in turn helps us take action when needed. So we're relying on you, the users, to be our eyes on the web, and to let us know of potential issues that are important to you.
Why We Created "Flag As Objectionable"
It is our strong belief that blogs help make the Web an important medium of self-expression; Blogger has given a voice to millions of people. Our users gossip, joke, rant, publish, share, and on occasion might post potentially objectionable stuff. We generally do not review the content posted through our service but our responsibility extends beyond Blogger users to casual readers of Blog*Spot.
The "Flag?" button is a means by which readers of Blog*Spot can help inform us about potentially questionable content, so we can prevent others from encountering such material by setting particular blogs as "unlisted." This means the blog won't be promoted on Blogger.com but will still be available on the web — we prefer to keep in mind that one person's vulgarity is another's poetry. Or something like that.
For more serious cases, such as spam blogs or sites engaging in illegal activity, we will continue to enforce our existing policies (removing content and deleting accounts when necessary).
Here's How It Works
When a person visiting a blog clicks the "Flag?" button in the Blogger Navbar, it means they believe the content of the blog may be potentially offensive or illegal. We track the number of times a blog has been flagged as objectionable and use this information to determine what action is needed. This feature allows the blogging community as a whole to identify content they deem objectionable. Have you read The Wisdom of Crowds? It's sort of like that.
Special Case for Hate Speech
When the community has voted and hate speech is identified on Blog*Spot, Google may exercise its right to place a Content Warning page in front of the blog and set it to "unlisted."
Note: users may click the "Unflag" button if they change their mind.