On Buzzfeed No One Lives After 49

Maybe Buzzfeed is only for people under the age of 50. Does it blow up or something? I guess I will never know the last thing I Googled. Maybe I don’t know how to use a computer. Possibly I’m living in a society where the cut off is 50. (A little more generous than the 30 from Logan’s Run). I’d thank someone if I could be sure I’m not too old to remember their name.

This quiz has hacked your Google search results (OK, technically not true).

Source: Can We Guess The Last Thing You Googled Based On Your Age

buzz1 buzz2 buzz3

That’s it. After 49 the numbers stopped. I’m 50. Later I will be 51, still alive. At least that’s my plan.

When Wax Attacks

I don’t know where this came from originally. I wish I did. I’d gladly link back. My Mom posted it on Facebook, that’s how I found it.

My night began as any other normal weeknight. Come home, fix dinner, and play with the kids. I then had the thought that would ring painfully in my mind for the next few hours: ‘Maybe I should pull the waxing kit out of the medicine cabinet.’

So I headed to the site of my demise: the bathroom. It was one of those ‘cold wax’ kits. No melting a clump of hot wax, you just rub the strips together in your hand, they get warm and you peel them apart and press them to your leg (or wherever else) and you pull the hair right off.

No mess, no fuss. How hard can it be? I mean, I’m not a genius, but I am mechanically inclined enough to figure this out. (YA THINK!?!)

So I pull one of the thin strips out. Its two strips facing each other stuck together. Instead of rubbing them together, my genius kicks in so I get out the hair dryer and heat it to 1000 degrees. (‘Cold wax,’ yeah…right!) I lay the strip across my thigh. Hold the skin around it tight and pull. It works!

OK, so it wasn’t the best feeling, but it wasn’t too bad. I can do this! Hair removal no longer eludes me! I am She-rah, fighter of all wayward body hair and maker of smooth skin extraordinaire.

With my next wax strip I move north after checking on the kids, I sneak back into the bathroom, for the ultimate hair fighting championship. I drop my panties and place one foot on the toilet.

Using the same procedure, I apply the wax strip across the right side of my bikini line, covering the right half of my hoo-ha and stretching down to the inside of my butt cheek (it was a long strip) ..

I inhale deeply and brace myself…RRRRIIIPPP!!!!

I’m blind!!! Blinded from pain!!!!….OH MY GAWD!!!!!!!!!

Vision returning, I notice that I’ve only managed to pull off half the strip. CRAP! Another deep breath and RIPP! Everything is spinning and spotted.

I think I may pass out…must stay conscious…must stay conscious. Do I hear crashing drums??? Breathe, breathe…OK, back to normal.

I want to see my trophy – a wax covered strip, the one that has caused me so much pain, with my hairy pelt sticking to it. I want to revel in the glory that is my triumph over body hair. I hold up the strip!

There’s no hair on it.

Where is the hair??? WHERE IS THE WAX???

Slowly I ease my head down, foot still perched on the toilet. I see the hair. The hair that should be on the strip…it’s not! I touch. .. I am touching wax!!

I run my fingers over the most sensitive part of my body, which is now covered in cold wax and matted hair. Then I make the next BIG mistake…remember my foot is still propped upon the toilet? I know I need to do something. So I put my foot down.

Sealed shut! My butt is sealed shut. Sealed shut!

I penguin walk around the bathroom trying to figure out what to do and think to myself ‘Please don’t let me get the urge to poop. My head may pop off!’
What can I do to melt the wax?

Hot water!! Hot water melts wax!! I’ll run the hottest water I can stand into the bathtub, get in, immerse the wax-covered bits and the wax should melt and I can gently wipe it off, right???

*WRONG!!!!!!!*

I get in the tub – the water is slightly hotter than that used to torture prisoners of war or sterilize surgical equipment – I sit.

Now, the only thing worse than having your nether regions glued together, is having them glued together and then glued to the bottom of the tub…in scalding hot water. Which, by the way, doesn’t melt cold wax.

So, now I’m stuck to the bottom of the tub as though I had cemented myself to the porcelain!! God bless the man who had convinced me a few months ago to have a phone put in the bathroom!!!!!

I call my friend, thinking surely she has waxed before and has some secret of how to get me undone. It’s a very good conversation starter ‘So, my butt and hoo-ha are glued together to the bottom of the tub!’

There is a slight pause. She doesn’t know any secret tricks for removal but she does try to hide her laughter from me. She wants to know exactly where the wax is located, ‘Are we talking cheeks or hole or hoo-ha?’

She’s laughing out loud by now…I can hear her. I give her the rundown and she suggests I call the number on the side of the box.

YEAH!!!!! Right!! I should be the joke of someone else’s night. While we go through various solutions. I resort to trying to scrape the wax off with a razor. Nothing feels better than to have your girlie goodies covered in hot wax, glued shut, stuck to the tub in super hot water and then dry-shaving the sticky wax off!! By now the brain is not working, dignity has taken a major hike and I’m pretty sure I’m going to need Post-Traumatic Stress counseling for this event.

My friend is still talking with me when I finally see my saving grace….the lotion they give you to remove the excess wax.

What do I really have to lose at this point? I rub some on and … OH MY GAWD!!!!!!! The scream probably woke the kids and scared the dickens out of my friend. Its sooo painful, but I really don’t care.
‘IT WORKS!!

It works!!’ I get a hearty congratulation from my friend and she hangs up. I successfully remove the remainder of the wax and then notice to my grief and despair…?

THE HAIR IS STILL HERE…….ALL OF IT!

So I recklessly shave it off. Heck, I’m numb by now. Nothing hurts.
I could have amputated my own leg at this point.

Next week I’m going to try hair color……

Now share this one and give your friends a good laugh!

7 Reasons Why HTML Email is Evil

Original page from George Dillon.

7 reasons why HTML e-mail is EVIL!!!

This page summarises a longer article, now called HTML email is STILL evil!!!

INTRODUCTION

I originally wrote this article in 2000 for friends, the tongue-in-cheek title inspired by objections to HTML mail expressed in the evolt.org web designer’s list. By 2002 some big sites had linked to it, traffic (and abusive responses) to the page had increased and the internet had changed significantly, so I decided to update it.

The internet is now cheaper, faster and bigger than ever – and it’s also more hazardous than ever. While HTML mail is being employed more and more, particularly for mass-marketting, it is and always will be true that: HTML email can be dangerous, is not always readable, wastes bandwidth and is simply not necessary.

This article does not aim to present a balanced argument about the merits or otherwise of HTML mail. Nor am I suggesting that sending HTML mail will hurt you – it may even boost your company sales. However receiving HTML email can cause problems, so if you care at all about the people you send mail to, read on…

 

The 7 sins

1. HTML e-mail is dangerous

Nearly all viruses are transmitted by email. Both plain text and HTML mail may carry malware attachments but with HTML there is a significantly greater risk since some malware can exploit vulnerabilities in the HTML parser to automatically execute code as soon as the message is viewed in the preview pane (i.e. without the attachment having to be ‘opened’.)

2. HTML e-mail wastes bandwidth

Look at the source code of any HTML message and after the headers you’ll see the message body is duplicated, once in plain text and once in HTML. So most HTML messages are at least twice as big as plain text only, and they can be many time larger.

3. HTML e-mail doesn’t always work

Some popular e-mail readers (e.g. Pegasus) simply don’t read HTML mail, others (Pocomail and even AOL) have difficulties displaying it properly.

4. HTML e-mail can connect to the internet by itself

If you’re off-line, opening an HTML email cantaining images may (by default) open a connection to the internet.

5. HTML e-mail renders slowly

Some mail apps (e.g. Outlook) can slow down considerably when rendering HTML. The need for an HTML parser has also led to code-bloat in email apps generally.

6. HTML e-mail is not always reader-friendly

HTML allows the sender to use unreadably small or non-standard fonts, clashing colours, badly formatted images and sometimes there is no quick or easy way for the reader to adjust the appearance to THEIR choice.

7. Digested lists hate HTML mail

Subscriber lists, particularly those with a digest, discourage and sometimes block HTML (since it appears in the digest as a mess of code).

 

What to do…

Sending HTML-formatted email is just not necessary. If the appearance of your message is important either put it on a website and mail the URL, or save it as an .rtf (or even a .pdf) document, zip that up and send it as an attachment to a plain text mail

So.. check in your email client’s options for how to set ‘Mail Sending Format’ to ‘Plain Text’…

…and how to turn OFF ‘Reply to messages in the format in which they were sent’.

With these settings you will still be able to send images and other attachments. And images attached to plain text mail will be displayed by most popular email clients.

 

Links:

Here are some related pages. The links may have gone bad since I wrote this article.

(Note: These links are repeated below in the updated version of this post. I have checked the links. The link rot has been given a strikethrough).

HTML e-mail is STILL evil!!!

Introduction

(or “Comment: RE: Your “Seven reasons…” site, a question. Just who the hell do you think you are?“)

In late 1999 I subscribed to the evolt.org web designer’s list. I was struck by the vehemence of opposition to HTML email expressed by many on the list, with some half-seriously describing it as ‘evil’. A year later I understood their reasoning, but many of my newbie friends didn’t, and after a particularly nasty month in which I became a telephone help-line for several virus-infected acquaintances I decided to write this and the accompanying articles – Netiquette, Spam Fighting and Basic Online Security – so that I didn’t have to keep repeating the same advice. My intention was to have some URLs I could send to my errant friends, instead of wasting hours on the ‘phone or typing out the same advice in emails.

However all those articles have been found and linked to by bigger (and better) sites than mine and as a result general traffic to this page has soared… and so has the number of anonymous abusive responses! OK I can take abuse – after all, in my real life I’m a provocative performer and you should read some of my bad reviews – but the recent sudden surge in referrals (and abuse – e.g. the above) has prompted me to rethink this article and after doing so my conclusion was that…

HTML email is still EVIL and it’s getting worse!!!

The internet is a dangerous place for the unwary, the trusting and the naive but a safe haven for the lazy, the spiteful, the self-centered and the cowardly. One such individual sent me this:

SUBJECT: HTML email doesn’t workGee, that’s funny. The week my company (name withheld for privacy) switched to using HTML emails instead of plain-text for our marketing campaign offers our revenues took a dramatic leap and have pretty much tripled over the last year and half. I guess you just have to know what you’re doing, or at least have some experience in these things. Your comments and ideas are very outdated.

Sincerely,
B. D. Satterfield
Online Creative Director for above unmamed software company

This message was carefully typed into my contact form, without a valid email address being entered, so there was no way I could return it or even reply to it, though I did trace the I.P. no of the sender to a known spammer.

The ‘know what you’re doing’ jibe missed its mark since B.D. Satterfield (oh yes!) had clearly missed the purpose of my article and simple truth of my statement that ‘HTML e-mail doesn’t always work’. However the ‘outdated’ accusation WAS fair comment.

Two years ago I wrote that “it is hardly professional to ignore (or to be ignorant of) the negative impact of that message on the more informed members of your audience or the fact that a significant percentage will choose to instantly consign it to the waste basket or may never even receive it.”

OK that was clearly wrong. But hey, I hadn’t revised the page for more than a year and in that time the internet had changed radically… and not all to the good.

On the positive side, the internet is now cheaper, faster and bigger than ever. Unmetered access and widely available broadband, which were both ‘a fantasy’ in early 2000 are now becoming the norm, even here in the backwards UK. So the bandwidth issue, though still true, is of less concern than it was.

But that is the only positive. Unfortunately the cloud to that silver lining is that HTML mail is now more accepted, since fewer users will immediately notice the difference between a 5kb plain text or a 50kb HTML message. So… fewer notice… so fewer object… so more companies resort to HTML mail…

HTML email is now everywhere. But just because it is more accepted doesn’t mean it’s more acceptable.

On the negative side… the internet is now more dangerous than ever due to the increase in always-on connections in combination with the ignorance/complacency of new users of vulnerable systems (like the hacker-friendly WindowsXP) which can be hijacked for use as spam of DOS ‘bots’, PLUS the exponential growth in viral ingenuity and reproductivity, PLUS the refinement and ubiquity of user-tracking web-marketing technology (read ‘spyware’).

 

So what’s wrong with HTML mail?

Before I list the 7 points, I want one make one thing as clear as I can. It’s RECEIVING HTML mail that’s the problem. SENDING HTML mail will not hurt you (unless you are still using a metered dial up connection) – it may even boost your company sales – but it also may hurt the people to whom you send it. So if you are happy to be ignorant, lazy, spiteful, self-centred and/or cowardly you can ignore the rest of this article and go and bask in you supercillious smugness. OTOH if you care at all about the people you send mail to, read on…

HTML email can be dangerous,
HTML email is not always readable,
HTML email wastes bandwidth
and
HTML email is simply not necessary.

These 4 points are as true now as they were 3 years ago and indeed they will ALWAYS be true while plain text exists as an alternative to HTML mail. (I hereby predict that M$ are designing Outlook Express 9 to ONLY accept HTML email – remember you read it here first!)

So here are the same seven points I made before, all still true though some details have been updated and expanded:

 

1. HTML e-mail is dangerous

If for no other reason, you should not send e-mail in HTML format because by doing so you are exposing your intended recipient(s) to the risk of catching a virus – a virus which you yourself may be unaware you have until you are told about it by someone you have infected (or until it alerts you to its presence by unleashing its payload).

Most of the fast-spreading internet-borne viruses propagate by automatically forwarding themselves to every address which they can find in your address book, and some even seek out every address in the body of every message in your inbox. Of course, they don’t stop to ask your permission before doing this – the first symptom you’ll spot is someone you’ve infected sending you an angry message saying you’ve given them a virus.

Unfortunatley the latest popular virus at the time of writing (k l e z) fakes the from address too, so you cannot warn (or accuse) unknowing senders of viruses, and you may also find yourself falsely accused.

But what has this to do with HTML mail?

For at least 3 years there have been viruses (namely Bubbleboy and kak.worm) which are triggered simply by viewing an HTML message in the preview pane of unpatched versions of Outlook Express. There are other ways of getting html functional email to automatically run code, by exploiting a vulnerability in the way the Internet Explorer engine (which Outlook and OE use to display HTML mail) handles IFRAMEs for example.

Since HTML can include scripts, HTML email is obviously more of a security risk than plain text, and the most recent viruses have made full use of this flaw.

2. HTML e-mail always wastes bandwidth

HTML e-mails are always at least twice the size of plain text mail, since they include both the plain text version and the same thing with embedded html markup tags. Don’t believe me? Just look at the source code of any html mail you have received (in Outlook Express click File > Properties > Details > Message Source).

So YOU may have a big fat connection, but if you’re sending your HTML mail to 5000+ addresses, some of your users will probably be on 56k or less metered dial-up connections, and your bloated message will cost them money.

3. HTML e-mail doesn’t always work

Some popular e-mail readers (Pegasus Mail for one example) simply don’t read HTML mail and others (such as Pocomail and even AOL) have difficulties displaying it properly.

The irony is that the applications which do read HTML well are precisely the ones which have the security holes. Why? …because they render HTML… To do so they need to use some form of HTML rendering engine, usually one that is already resident on your system rather than one that is inbuilt. i.e. they use I.E. and Internet Explorer is so closely connected to the heart of the Windows OS that a security hole in it can be an open door to hard-drive trashing scripts.

4. HTML e-mail can connect to the internet by itself

If an HTML e-mail includes references to online images then (by default) Dial-Up Networking will try to connect to the internet to download those images. These images can also be used to set and retrieve cookies. O.K. So neither of these are your problem if you’re the sender… but they can be very annoying if you’re on the receiving end.

5. HTML e-mail renders slowly

Some mail apps (e.g. Outlook) can slow down considerably when rendering HTML. The need for an HTML parser has also led to code-bloat in email apps generally.

6. HTML usually looks like it has been designed by stoned amateur chimpanzees using Front Page Express with their feet

HTML e-mail offers the sender the opportunity to really go to town with their lack of design skills – unreadably small fonts, fonts that no-one else is likely to have, clashing colors, badly formatted image files etc. etc. By taking control of the appearance of e-mail away from the recipient they can prevent the sight-impaired from applying necessary user-accessability options…

7. Digested lists hate HTML mail

OK, this one’s a little specific, but if you send an HTML email to a subscriber list which has a digested version (i.e. which bundles several postings together into a single longer email) then your message may well appear in the digested version with all its html tags – i.e. virtually unreadable… that is if the list administrator hasn’t configured their server to automatically filter your offending format to oblivion.

What to do…

Sending HTML-formatted email is just not necessary. If the appearance of your message is important either put it on a website and mail the URL, or save it as an .rtf (or even a .pdf) document, zip that up and send it as an attachment to a plain text mail

So.. check in your email client’s options for how to set ‘Mail Sending Format’ to ‘Plain Text’…

…and how to turn OFF ‘Reply to messages in the format in which they were sent’.

Here’s how to stop sending (EVIL) HTML e-mail from Outlook Express.

With these settings you will still be able to send images and other attachments. And images attached to plain text mail will be displayed by most popular email clients.

 

Links:

Here are some related pages. The links may have gone bad since I wrote this article.

Tired of the Shoe Thing

I’m tired of the over-used thing about women and shoes. I don’t care much about shoes. I have a pair for summer and a pair for winter. When one wears out I buy more. I don’t drop everything for a shoe sale. I don’t think shoe shopping is a great way to spend an afternoon. Seems there has been a thing in the media about how much women love shoes.

I think it began with Caroline in the City (or whatever that show was called) where her men friends created a cartoon about women never having enough shoes. OK, ha ha ha. It didn’t make sense to me cause I don’t know any women like that. But, sure, I’ll go along with it.

Since then I keep seeing more of the shoe thing. It seems to be growing and gaining momentum. Enough already. Not all women have a shoe fetish. I expect it’s only a very few in fact.