I am somewhat surprised that after so many people mentioned Norshteyn's Hedgehog in the Fog, nobody mentioned his Tale of Tales

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tale_of_Tales

here are youtube links (three parts)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4U_xk6CKI0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNlzODWD5tw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ruqPZ66cnQ

(it doesn't have subtitles, but then again, I don't think it has any actual dialogue)

I had rather a few points to make on the style of rhetoric used by both sides of the GW argument, so here is my LJ post about it.

http://vombatus.livejournal.com/259205.html

About the versions, RC1 and RC2 are both saying they are 3.0 in the About page.

The FTP link from #11 seems to work. The getfirefox page seems to still point to Firefox 2, so there is no real way to contribute to the download count yet. Pity. I guess I will contribute to the record by downloading Firefox 3 using Firefox 3 :)

Well. I don't want to rain on the parade, but there is an inherent problem with making a system "absolutely" anonymous and secure. The more security measures you take, the more unusable your system becomes. Freenet project is a good illustration of this principle, being one of the most secure anonymous networks around, but at the time being slow close to unusability due to the overhead. Yes, catch open wireless, switch between access points every few seconds, use anonymizers like TOR and high grade encryption and now you have nearly untraceable, extremely secure and completely unusable connection.

Yes, nice to see a sane person unafraid in the world of paranoia. I guess NYC is one of the best places to do this though, since this is one city where people might not react to a 9 year old riding subway or bus or just walking the streets by himself. I would guess in some of the other cities the kid would end up in police due to help of some "good Samaritan" with obvious consequences to the parent.

I am not entirely sure if I understand this. So, these law companies, pay expectant mothers in Guatemala to give up their babies, provide false identities for these mothers to cut through the proper legal adoption mechanism and provide these babies to american families looking to adopt for an "adoption fee" of some sort? Is this correct? If so, I can see where some of it is not exactly a very nice thing to do, but the mothers are poor and willing to give up their babies and people in US are willing to adopt, so all we have left are the fees charged by these companies. What is the big deal?