Making

Some cool china tooling making suppliers images:

A Bitcoin You Can Flip

Image by jurvetson
My son has become fascinated with bitcoins, and so I had to get him a tangible one for Xmas (thanks Sim1!). The public key is imprinted visibly on the tamper-evident holographic film, and the private key lies underneath.

I too was fascinated by digital cash back in college, and more specifically by the asymmetric mathematical transforms underlying public-key crypto and digital blind signatures.

I remembered a technical paper I wrote, but could not find it. A desktop search revealed an essay that I completely forgot, something that I had recovered from my archives of floppy discs (while I still could).

It is an article I wrote for the school newspaper in 1994. Ironically, Microsoft Word could not open this ancient Microsoft Word file format, but the free text editors could.

What a fun time capsule, below, with some choice naivetés…

I am trying to reconstruct what I was thinking, and wondering if it makes any sense. I think I was arguing that a bulletproof framework for digital cash (and what better testing ground) could be used to secure a digital container for executable code on a rental basis. So the expression of an idea — the specific code, or runtime service — is locked in a secure container. The idea would be to prevent copying instead of punishing after the fact. Micro-currency and micro-code seem like similar exercises in regulating the single use of an issued number.

Now that the Bitcoin experiment is underway, do you know of anyone writing about it as an alternative framework for intellectual property?

IP and Digital Cash
@NORMAL:
Digital Cash and the “Intellectual Property” Oxymoron
By Steve Jurvetson

Many of us will soon be working in the information services or technology industries which are currently tangled in a bramble patch of intellectual property law. As the law struggles to find coherency and an internally-consistent logic for intellectual property (IP) protection, digital encryption technologies may provide a better solution — from the perspective of reducing litigation, exploiting the inherent benefits of an information-based business model, and preserving a free economy of ideas.
Bullet-proof digital cash technology, which is now emerging, can provide a protected “cryptographic container” for intellectual expressions, thereby preserving traditional notions of intellectual property that protect specific instantiations of an idea rather than the idea itself. For example, it seems reasonable that Intuit should be able to protect against the widespread duplication of their Quicken software (the expression of an idea), but they should not be able to patent the underlying idea of single-entry bookkeeping. There are strong economic incentives for digital cash to develop and for those techniques to be adapted for IP protection — to create a protected container or expression of an idea. The rapid march of information technology has strained the evolution of IP law, but rather than patching the law, information technology itself may provide a more coherent solution.

Information Wants To Be Free
Currently, IP law is enigmatic because it is expanding to a domain for which it was not initially intended. In developing the U.S. Constitution, Thomas Jefferson argued that ideas should freely transverse the globe, and that ideas were fundamentally different from material goods. He concluded that “Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.” The issues surrounding IP come into sharp focus as we shift to being more of an information-based economy.
The use of e-mail and local TV footage helps disseminate information around the globe and can be a force for democracy — as seen in the TV footage from Chechen, the use of modems in Prague during the Velvet Revolution, and the e-mail and TV from Tianammen Square. Even Gorbachev used a video camera to show what was happening after he was kidnapped. What appears to be an inherent force for democracy runs into problems when it becomes the subject of property.
As higher-level programming languages become more like natural languages, it will become increasingly difficult to distinguish the idea from the code. Language precedes thought, as Jean-Louis Gassée is fond of saying, and our language is the framework for the formulation and expression of our ideas. Restricting software will increasingly be indistinguishable from restricting freedom of speech.
An economy of ideas and human attention depends on the continuous and free exchange of ideas. Because of the associative nature of memory processes, no idea is detached from others. This begs the question, is intellectual property an oxymoron?

Intellectual Property Law is a Patch
John Perry Barlow, former Grateful Dead lyricist and co-founder (with Mitch Kapor) of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argues that “Intellectual property law cannot be patched, retrofitted or expanded to contain digitized expression… Faith in law will not be an effective strategy for high-tech companies. Law adapts by continuous increments and at a pace second only to geology. Technology advances in lunging jerks. Real-world conditions will continue to change at a blinding pace, and the law will lag further behind, more profoundly confused. This mismatch may prove impossible to overcome.”
From its origins in the Industrial Revolution where the invention of tools took on a new importance, patent and copyright law has protected the physical conveyance of an idea, and not the idea itself. The physical expression is like a container for an idea. But with the emerging information superhighway, the “container” is becoming more ethereal, and it is disappearing altogether. Whether it’s e-mail today, or the future goods of the Information Age, the “expressions” of ideas will be voltage conditions darting around the net, very much like thoughts. The fleeting copy of an image in RAM is not very different that the fleeting image on the retina.
The digitization of all forms of information — from books to songs to images to multimedia — detaches information from the physical plane where IP law has always found definition and precedent. Patents cannot be granted for abstract ideas or algorithms, yet courts have recently upheld the patentability of software as long as it is operating a physical machine or causing a physical result. Copyright law is even more of a patch. The U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 requires that works be fixed in a durable medium, and where an idea and its expression are inseparable, the merger doctrine dictates that the expression cannot be copyrighted. E-mail is not currently copyrightable because it is not a reduction to tangible form. So of course, there is a proposal to amend these copyright provisions. In recent rulings, Lotus won its case that Borland’s Quattro Pro spreadsheet copied elements of Lotus 123’s look and feel, yet Apple lost a similar case versus Microsoft and HP. As Professor Bagley points out in her new text, “It is difficult to reconcile under the total concept and feel test the results in the Apple and Lotus cases.” Given the inconsistencies and economic significance of these issues, it is no surprise that swarms of lawyers are studying to practice in the IP arena.
Back in the early days of Microsoft, Bill Gates wrote an inflammatory “Open Letter to Hobbyists” in which he alleged that “most of you steal your software … and should be kicked out of any club meeting you show up at.” He presented the economic argument that piracy prevents proper profit streams and “prevents good software from being written.” Now we have Windows.
But seriously, if we continue to believe that the value of information is based on scarcity, as it is with physical objects, we will continue to patch laws that are contrary to the nature of information, which in many cases increases in value with distribution. Small, fast moving companies (like Netscape and Id) protect their ideas by getting to the marketplace quicker than their larger competitors who base their protection on fear and litigation.
The patent office is woefully understaffed and unable to judge the nuances of software. Comptons was initially granted a patent that covered virtually all multimedia technology. When they tried to collect royalties, Microsoft pushed the Patent Office to overturn the patent. In 1992, Software Advertising Corp received a patent for “displaying and integrating commercial advertisements with computer software.” That’s like patenting the concept of a radio commercial. In 1993, a DEC engineer received a patent on just two lines of machine code commonly used in object-oriented programming. CompuServe announced this month that they plan to collect royalties on the widely used GIF file format for images.
The Patent Office has issued well over 12,000 software patents, and a programmer can unknowingly be in violation of any them. Microsoft had to pay 0MM to STAC in February 1994 for violating their patent on data compression. The penalties can be costly, but so can a patent search. Many of the software patents don’t have the words “computer,” “software,” “program,” or “algorithm” in their abstracts. “Software patents turn every decision you make while writing a program into a legal risk,” says Richard Stallman, founder of the League for Programming Freedom. “They make writing a large program like crossing a minefield. Each step has a small chance of stepping on a patent and blowing you up.” The very notion of seventeen years of patent protection in the fast moving software industry seems absurd. MS-DOS did not exist seventeen years ago.
IP law faces the additional wrinkle of jurisdictional issues. Where has an Internet crime taken place? In the country or state in which the computer server resides? Many nations do not have the same intellectual property laws as the U.S. Even within the U.S., the law can be tough to enforce; for example, a group of music publishers sued CompuServe for the digital distribution of copyrighted music. A complication is that CompuServe has no knowledge of the activity since it occurs in the flood of bits transferring between its subscribers
The tension seen in making digital copies revolves around the issue of property. But unlike the theft of material goods, copying does not deprive the owner of their possessions. With digital piracy, it is less a clear ethical issue of theft, and more an abstract notion that you are undermining the business model of an artist or software developer. The distinction between ethics and laws often revolves around their enforceability. Before copy machines, it was hard to make a book, and so it was obvious and visible if someone was copying your work. In the digital age, copying is lightning fast and difficult to detect. Given ethical ambiguity, convenience, and anonymity, it is no wonder we see a cultural shift with regard to digital ethics.

Piracy, Plagiarism and Pilfering
We copy music. We are seldom diligent with our footnotes. We wonder where we’ve seen Strat-man’s PIE and the four slices before. We forward e-mail that may contain text from a copyrighted news publication. The SCBA estimates that 51% of satellite dishes have illegal descramblers. John Perry Barlow estimates that 90% of personal hard drives have some pirated software on them.
Or as last month’s Red Herring editorial points out, “this atmosphere of electronic piracy seems to have in turn spawned a freer attitude than ever toward good old-fashioned plagiarism.” Articles from major publications and WSJ columns appear and circulate widely on the Internet. Computer Pictures magazine replicated a complete article on multimedia databases from New Media magazine, and then publicly apologized.
Music and voice samples are an increasingly common art form, from 2 Live Crew to Negativland to local bands like Voice Farm and Consolidated. Peter Gabriel embraces the shift to repositioned content; “Traditionally, the artist has been the final arbiter of his work. He delivered it and it stood on its own. In the interactive world, artists will also be the suppliers of information and collage material, which people can either accept as is, or manipulate to create their own art. It’s part of the shift from skill-based work to decision-making and editing work.”
But many traditionalists resist the change. Museums are hesitant to embrace digital art because it is impossible to distinguish the original from a copy; according to a curator at the New Museum of Contemporary Art, “The art world is scared to death of this stuff.” The Digital Audio Tape debate also illustrated the paranoia; the music industry first insisted that these DAT recorders had to purposely introduce static into the digital copies they made, and then they settled for an embedded code that limited the number of successive copies that could be made from the a master source.
For a healthier reaction, look at the phenomenally successful business models of Mosaic/Netscape and Id Software, the twisted creator of Doom. Just as McAfee built a business on shareware, Netscape and Id encourage widespread free distribution of their product. But once you want support from Netscape, or the higher levels of the Doom game, then you have to pay. For industries with strong demand-side economies of scale, such as Netscape web browsers or Safe-TCL intelligent agents, the creators have exploited the economies of information distribution. Software products are especially susceptible to increasing returns with scale, as are networking products and most of the information technology industries.
Yet, the Software Publishers Association reports that 1993 worldwide losses to piracy of business application software totaled .45 billion. They also estimated that 89% of software units in Korea were counterfeit. And China has 29 factories, some state-owned, that press 75 million pirated CDs per year, largely for export. GATT will impose the U.S. notions of intellectual property on a world that sees the issue very differently.
Clearly there are strong economic incentives to protect intellectual property, and reasonable arguments can be made for software patents and digital copyright, but the complexities of legal enforcement will be outrun and potentially obviated by the relatively rapid developments of another technology, digital cash and cryptography.

Digital Cash and the IP Lock
Digital cash is in some ways an extreme example of digital “property” — since it cannot be copied, it is possessed by one entity at a time, and it is static and non-perishable. If the techniques for protecting against pilferage and piracy work in the domain of cash, then they can be used to “protect” other properties by being embedded in them. If I wanted to copy-protect an “original” work of digital art, digital cash techniques be used as the “container” to protect intellectual property in the old style. A bullet-proof digital cash scheme would inevitably be adapted by those who stand to gain from the current system. Such as Bill Gates.
Several companies are developing technologies for electronic commerce. On January 12, several High-Tech Club members attended the Cybermania conference on electronic commerce with the CEOs of Intuit, CyberCash, Enter TV and The Lightspan Partnership. According to Scott Cook, CEO of Intuit, the motivations for digital cash are anonymity and efficient small-transaction Internet commerce. Anonymity preserves our privacy in the age of increasingly intrusive “database marketing” based on credit card purchase patterns and other personal information. Of course, it also has tax-evasion implications. For Internet commerce, cash is more efficient and easier to use than a credit card for small transactions.
“A lot of people will spend nickels on the Internet,” says Dan Lynch of CyberCash. Banks will soon exchange your current cash for cyber-tokens, or a “bag of bits” which you can spend freely on the Internet. A competitor based in the Netherlands called DigiCash has a Web page with numerous articles on electronic money and fully functional demo of their technology. You can get some free cash from them and spend it at some of their allied vendors.
Digital cash is a compelling technology. Wired magazine calls it the “killer application for electronic networks which will change the global economy.” Handling and fraud costs for the paper money system are growing as digital color copiers and ATMs proliferate. Donald Gleason, President of the Smart Card Enterprise unit of Electronic Payment Services argues that “Cash is a nightmare. It costs money handlers in the U.S. alone approximately billion a year to move the stuff… Bills and coinage will increasingly be replaced by some sort of electronic equivalent.” Even a Citibank VP, Sholom Rosen, agrees that “There are going to be winners and losers, but everybody is going to play.”
The digital cash schemes use a blind digital signature and a central repository to protect against piracy and privacy violations. On the privacy issue, the techniques used have been mathematically proven to be protected against privacy violations. The bank cannot trace how the cash is being used or who is using it. Embedded in these schemes are powerful digital cryptography techniques which have recently been spread in the commercial domain (RSA Data Security is a leader in this field and will be speaking to the High Tech Club on January 19).
To protect against piracy requires some extra work. As soon as I have a digital bill on my Mac hard drive, I will want to make a copy, and I can. (Many companies have busted their picks trying to copy protect files from hackers. It will never work.). The difference is that I can only spend the bill once. The copy is worthless. This is possible because every bill has a unique encrypted identifier. In spending the bill, my computer checks with the centralized repository which verifies that my particular bill is still unspent. Once I spend it, it cannot be spent again. As with many electronic transactions today, the safety of the system depends on the integrity of a centralized computer, or what Dan Lynch calls “the big database in the sky.”
One of the most important limitations of the digital cash techniques is that they are tethered to a transaction between at least three parties — a buyer, seller and central repository. So, to use such a scheme to protect intellectual property, would require networked computers and “live” files that have to dial up and check in with the repository to be operational. There are many compelling applications for this, including voter registration, voting tabulation, and the registration of digital artwork originals.
When I asked Dan Lynch about the use of his technology for intellectual property protection, he agreed that the bits that now represent a bill could be used for any number of things, from medical records to photographs. A digital photograph could hide a digital signature in its low-order bits, and it would be imperceptible to the user. But those bits could be used with a registry of proper image owners, and could be used to prove misappropriation or sampling of the image by others.
Technology author Steven Levy has been researching cryptography for Wired magazine, and he responded to my e-mail questions with the reply “You are on the right track in thinking that crypto can preserve IP. I know of several attempts to forward plans to do so.” Digital cash may provide a “crypto-container” to preserve traditional notions of intellectual property.
The transaction tether limits the short-term applicability of these schemes for software copy protection. They won’t work on an isolated computer. This certainly would slow its adoption for mobile computers since the wireless networking infrastructure is so nascent. But with Windows ’95 bundling network connectivity, soon most computers will be network-ready — at least for the Microsoft network. And now that Bill Gates is acquiring Intuit, instead of dollar bills, we will have Bill dollars.
The transaction tether is also a logistical headache with current slow networks, which may hinder its adoption for mass-market applications. For example, if someone forwards a copyrighted e-mail, the recipient may have to have their computer do the repository check before they could see the text of the e-mail. E-mail is slow enough today, but in the near future, these techniques of verifying IP permissions and paying appropriate royalties in digital cash could be background processes on a preemptive multitasking computer (Windows ’95 or Mac OS System 8). The digital cash schemes are consistent with other trends in software distribution and development — specifically software rental and object-oriented “applets” with nested royalty payments. They are also consistent with the document-centric vision of Open Doc and OLE.
The user of the future would start working on their stationary. When it’s clear they are doing some text entry, the word processor would be downloaded and rented for its current usage. Digital pennies would trickle back to the people who wrote or inspired the various portions of the core program. As you use other software applets, such as a spell-checker, it would be downloaded as needed. By renting applets, or potentially finer-grained software objects, the licensing royalties would be automatically tabulated and exchanged, and software piracy would require heroic efforts. Intellectual property would become precisely that — property in a market economy, under lock by its “creator,” and Bill Gates’ 1975 lament over software piracy may now be addressed 20 years later.

——–end of paper———–

On further reflection, I must have been thinking of executable code (where the runtime requires a cloud connect to authenticate) and not passive media. Verification has been a pain, but perhaps it’s seamless in a web-services future. Cloud apps and digital cash depend on it, so why not the code itself.

I don’t see it as particularly useful for still images (but it could verify the official owner of any unique bundle of pixels, in the sense that you can "own" a sufficiently large number, but not the essence of a work of art or derivative works). Frankly, I’m not sure about non-interactive content in general, like pure video playback. "Fixing" software IP alone would be a big enough accomplishment.

1960’s packet of sealed Embassy cigarettes unopened best selling cigarett brand of the 1960’s until 1971, succeeded by Players No6

Image by Computer Poster Photographs
Cigarettes have been available packets for a long time The fraze "Coff in nails" Is a old 19th century word (1880s) Only fitting because the like of brands that came out with natural, especially like "WoodBine" 1888) and knowing the dangers of smoking even then. called cigarettes "coffin nails" The Bonsack machine in 1880 was the first cigarette making machine ever Woodbine was formally britains best selling cigarette and was decomissiomednon its 200th aninversery in 1988 when the manufactuer Wd&Ho Whills decided to debunked because of old age and call it a day at 200 years old. they was also the manufactuers odd Golden Virginia, and Embassy. in Britain not many brands have been Britains best selling cigarette, since the end of end of the 1940s there is only four brands that ever did this(Embassy, Players N06, Silk Cut and Lambert and Butler) Benson&Hedges special filter was never actually britains best selling cigarette, as there is no evidence in figures to say they was, also there is no figures published for the 1980s, maybe four brands drew with each other, so there was no out right winner, maybe Bensons had individual yeas a britains best selling cigarette and a good enough average of sales in infact qualify them for said award?. I guess maybe even though they never was beat seller in a decleration adequate they surly had lots of individual years where they was UK’so Number1. Silk Cut is a Benson brand any way, and so is Mayfair in reality. Mayfair are Britains second best selling cigarette since 2002 (First ever econemy tobacco brand that ever held the honour of Britain’s second best selling cigarette, L&B have been The UKs best seller since 2002, the top two have not changed to date., Mayfair are branded Gallagher, and now JTI that are the same company as Benson.. Mayfair is a 1960s Benson cigarette, originally in a red box, and not king size.
Silk Cut themselves was the biggest selling cigarette brand of the 1990s,
I might add.The worlds best selling cigarette is Marlboro since 1973 AS THE AMERICANS ALL THEM AS "COWBOY KILLERS" INDEED I AM A SMOKER AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT IS INDEED DANGEROUS TO ARM THESE CIGARETTES WITH A GUNS.
OLD CIGARETTE BOXES CAN FETCH A LOT OF MONEY UP TO A (£100 )ORIGINAL CIGARETTE PACKETS FROM 1847 TO THE 1890s ARE RARE AND WORTH A £ OR TWO, BUT REMAIN Unseen UNDOCUMENTED IN A PRIVATE COLLECTION BY A UNKNOWN COLLECTOR. IN INTERNET DOCUMENTATION, YOU MAY FIND DIAGRAMS ELSEWHERE BUT AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME THERE IS NO REAL DOCUMENTATIONAL EVIDENCE TO SHOW THESE EARLY CIGARETTES, SAYING THAT WE HAVE BEEN SMOKING IN BRITAIN FOR APPROX 540 YEARS OR MORE. THERE IS LOTS OF MEMORABILIA OUT THERE, IVE SEEN A FEW THREE HUNDRED YEARS OLD BRASS TOBACCO POTS WITH LIDS FOR SALE ON EBAY, NICE ADDITION TO YOUR 14 A DAY, WHY DO THEY STILL MAKE CIGARETTES? BECAUSE WE GET BAD TEMPERED IF WE HAVE NOT GOT ANY AND AGGRESSIVELY FORCE THE TOBACCO FACTORY WORKERS TO MAKE US SOME? WELL THAT MUST PASSED A MIND OF TWO WONDERING TO OURSELVES AFTER ALL KNOWING THE DANGERS OF SMOKING, TO AS WHY WE ARE TECHNICALLY STILL SMOKING THESE SMOKE STICKS THAT MAKE YOU FEEL SICK, MAYBE THEY ARE OUR PAIN THRESH HOLD, AND DEFEAT ANOTHER ILL. IF WE ENDURE THEM?
THE GOVERNMENT KNOW WHAT WE ARE LIKE. AND THAT’S WHY THEY CAN’T BAN THE STUFF? I HAVE BEEN PUFFIN AND INHALING TOBACCO PRODUCTS FOR 30 YEARS. IN THEM DAYS. 20 SUPERKINGS WAS £1.14p that about £3.40p in today’s reckoning. over £5 now is paid in tax on cigarettes (75%)
.Tax was introduced in 1976 and health warnings on packets in 1971 by EU law. knowing the dangers of smoking as i do i must say there is still mythology and confusion about cigarettes. Such as the boy advert on todays graphic health warning.that claim that "even smoking around children can kill them" and that people "up to the 1950s use to smoke a average of 100 cigarettes a day" opposed to today’s figures of 14 a day average intake. Its where the system gets confused, and the seems as if the non smoker is trying to take control, and make false claims such as "smoking around children damages there health", When infact most of us smokers would rather be the child as they have 99.9% fresher air than us non smokers do, whether or not there is smoke in the same room as they are in, and the smell of nicotine is good for them , as it makes them feel sick and deters them from smoking when they are old enough to do so, parents on the whole do not encourage children to smoke, it comes as well from other parts of the community, anyway there parents are not to blame for smoking, because they was children themselves once. Maybe a ignorant non smokers attitude at the end of the day to use children as the victim.
100 cigarettes a day is a myth? maybe maybe because cigarettes price have gone up five times , so they count that as 100? another case of misinterpretation of the official secrets act because they could not read the complexity of the text, these long words, and invest in PHD professors to de classify the official secrets act as official public revelation?
Jut like China did when they banned the motorbike recently, and never read the health and saft act out first as you must, but said they was not banning them from there towns because they was dangerous, but said because they was cheap, it is not so much they said they was a cheap form of transport, but they should have read the health and safety act out first, then you as thus say "there is better things to spend our money on"
.There has been Health warnings in BRITAIN FOR OVER 400 HUNDRED YEARS ON TOBACCO. I READ ONE RECENTLY DATED 200 YEARS AGO SAYING "SMOKING KILLS" THERE ARE INFACT 12 MILLION SMOKERS IN BRITAIN
AGAIN THE FIGURES WAS LOWERED TO HIDE A KIND OF NON SMOKERS PARANOIA WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT SMOKING IS ON THE DECREASE? ANYWAY HERE IS YOUR TOP TEN ALTERNATIVES TO SMOKING YOU ASKED ME FOR. CHOOSE YOUR OWN DEATH. JUST CHECK THAT TAB . YES YOU CAN "CUSTOMISED YOUR OWN DEATH" INSTEAD OF DYEING FROM CIGARETTES. CHOOSE FROM THE LIST PROVIDED AS A ALTERNATIVE INSTEAD
1- DRINK AND DRIVE?." ITS A FUN WAY TO GO"
US AT MADABOUT@COM CAN OFFER YOU THE BEST DEALS ON MASTER OF YOUR OWN ROAD, .WARNING BEWARE OF THIS WEBSITE AS THE PRODUCT IS A SEMI RIPP-OFF AS THEY ONLY SUPPLY A IN CAR BAR FITTING. NO TRAINING TO DO 125MPH ON A BUILT UP AREA FOR CHARITY DRUNK.
2- CONFESS TO THE POLICE YOU ARE REALLY A PAEDOPHILE? AT MORE T-I-C,s THAN A CLOCK .COM we can arrange this for you ,the setting up of fake photos,,witnesses to the crime, children in there masses can be supplied on demand to give false witnessbaccounts, as we are indeed the "biggest UK supplier" of said resource. guaranteed satisfaction, or "we will refund you your mumy back "GUARANTEED".
AGAIN IT MUST BE SAID BECAUSE OF THESE SITES CLAIMING TO BE PROFESSIONAL PEDO FRAME SPECIALISTS. YOU CAN END UP SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY "DIE PEDO DIE.CO.UK@YOU" ARE THE WORLD LEADER IN THIS INDUSTRY. THEY GET TO THE POINT. DON’T TAKE IT FROM ME, TAKE IT FROM THEM. THEY JUST SIMPLY SUPPLY YOU WITH A DIGITAL CAMERA, OR CAMCORDER. SIMPLE ISN’T IT JOB DONE BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT PEOPLE IN PUBLIC WITH CAMERAS ARE PEDO’S RIGHT? !THIS HAS A 100% SUCCESS RATE, OR YOU MONEY BACK GUARANTEED EXCUSE ME AS I GIVE MY SPONSOR A HELP IN HAND I AM JUST LOOKING OUT OF MY CAR WINDOW RIGHT NOW, I AM HERE TO PLEASE I CAN SEE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC NOW WITH A SLR. camera,"HAY YOU PEDO WHAT ARE YOU TAKING PICTURES FOR IN PUBLIC FOR, ARE YOU A REAL PERV? THAT’S AGAINST THE LAW TO TAKE PHOTOS IN PUBLIC PLACES I AM TELLING ON YOU PEDOCAM"
THERE YOU GO I OFFER MY SERVICE AS VOLUNTEER.
,3 -WATCH THE BBC ,4- LIVE, WITH MUM AND DAD ALL YOUR LIFE?
,5- SMOKE CHESTERFIELDS?,
6-USE TESCO’S 24HOUR?,
7-BELIEVE THAT BREAST ENLARGEMENTS ARE REAL?
8- LIVE ON FACEBOOK (THE STUDENTS UNION HAVE A GOVERNMENT HEALTH WARNING WRITTEN ON THEIR BACKS?) and behind there backs.
-9 USE FLICKR 16 A DAY, ARSEH*LE CREEPING AROUND OTHER FLICKR MEMBERS. LOOKING AT THERE PHOTO STREAM, LEAVING COMMENTS SO YOU CAN GET MORE VIEWS FOR YOUR BORING PICTURES PLASTIC? SYNTHETIC VIEW COUNT CHEAP OR WHAT?
. I MEAN AT HALF THE PRICE TWO FOR ONE OFFER! LIMITED PROMOTION TIME ONLY, OFFER END 30/09/2078.
YES WE GET IT THAT YOU VIEW EVERBODYS PHOTSTREAM, SO THEY WILL VISIT YOUR FLICKR WEBSITE, TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE DIGITS, TO INCREASE THEM SO IT LOOKS LIKE A MASS POLITICAL COVER UP, THAT IN ALL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WAS THE BORING HOME SLIDE SHOW COME ALIVE, COME REAL, CONCOCTED IN BEELZEBUBS LABS, USING ONLY "BLACK BUNNIES" TO TEST SAID APPLICATIONS OF DEEP BORE, ONLY CAPABLE AS WE KNOW BY THE COPYRIGHT LAWS TO BE EXCLUSIVE TO THE UNDERGROUND TEST FERSILATIES OF THE DEVIL.
I WILL JUST READ THE MANUFACTURES GLOSSY ON THIS SITE CALLED death-by-flickr@uk.com.
You mean flickr was concocted by the underworld, to fool us to believing different from what we all ready knew, and that was that other peoples photos are boring?
No you get done in by a dunce that contacted you on your flickr stream, and got friendly and then they came around and and killed you.

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST No-10 "give up smoking" all together now "smoking kills" IT DOES IF YOU HAVE NOT GOT ANY THIS IS GUARANTEED BY TH MANUFACTURERS CALLED GOOGLE.BOMB TO BE THE ONLY REAL ALTERNATIVE TO SMOKING CIGARETTES "GOOGLE.BOMB".UNIVERSITY KNOWALLS@CO.UK claim a 100% success rate on my spelling…erm i mean on this particular subject product description highlighted on top of the Pops 1978. WE ARE HERE TO SERVE THE SMOKING COMMUNITY. JUST DOWNLOAD THE SOFTWARE CLICK "RUN" and when the yahoo tool bar is fully downloaded press INSTALL US AND ARE FRIENDS YAHOO WITH ASK JEAVES ON LEAD BASEBALL BAT, CAN HAVE "ANY F***ER" YOU SEEMED TO KNOW THE SPELLING CORRECTION ON THAT DIDN’T YOU? JUST YOU LITTLE B*STARDS OF INTERNET FLIDDERMISATION-KEYBOARD JUNKY CLONES "WE ARE ARD" and thus "GUNS DON’T KILL PEOPLE , WE KILL PEOPLE". us at cog-google re-enterprises forward-slash-you-up-a-bit@http. can do anyone. So tell me now you have herd the top ten options whats your choice? you only live one life life’s to short not to take advantage of these offers why not try a free 30 day trial download them all and brake your hard drive rendering your PC useless maybe that’s the "11th best alternative to smoking" that no one is offering us smokers so in the mean time as i light another JPS up. oh that’s a add as it illegal to promote cigarettes. (in other words they need no introduction. that’s why they don’t promote cigarettes anymore
And before i totality CoggGoogle looking at the internet all the time, stripping the gears i have to say to the next time.

You was serious there for a minute wasn’t you John Future?"

Indeed because i was dying for a cigarette, so back to normal now with Dr Dr

"Dr Dr i cant give up smoking". Dr says try hand grenades, just juggle them until they expire.

Maybe thinking about it though if it was not best to ship all of the smokers out on big ships and put them all on a island somwhere, and maybe put there faces on a Easter egg as a "Thanks" but no thanks, the supermarkets are now hiding the cigarettes behind sliding doors, and so should smokers be?

"But we are not black you may say?"

But i got a shipping line to run, and get this "Duty Free" where do you want to go? Easter island?

"WE will re invade the UK, and ethnic every where. The Cannery islands"

Ok lets go anyway i will becoming along with you as the government does not like me either.

"We will miss home"

Miss home i am just taking you on a cruise tour of my New Album, as this is a smugglers ship, and if anything goes wrong don’t worry you take the blame. Last stop Felixstowe

And we have to stop to pick up some cars, and other items. As we don’t intend on paying any VAT once we arrive back, excise duty is really means exercise duty, but as we are "Fat Wasters" we don’t qualify to pay for any. and you want out of Britain don’t you? to go and live in other peoples countries, the land of promise. And get this we can scream racial discrimination with the best off them. Have our foreign faces put on TV programmes in other county. embarrass there society when other competitor country’s watch there exported TV programmes. as they are now ethnicated broadcasters?
Have have" White nigger" shouted to us by a passing white van, and then as always thus, go and find a puney little native and bash beefy Because you are in the right?
We all know people emigrate to other peoples country’s because they think they are soft targets, and they will get a better life, better house than living in there own countries , or the UK, and you think it was because they was on the run?.
I have simply cut out the middleman here with my ship, and intercepted some ethnics to be, and sank the ship in the middle of the ocean with there grandads left over submarine missile, he was innuendoing about for years, and "Germans this and that".
And i got a big bumper pack of 200 Embassy, and get this duty free for my Captain Seagull efforts today.

You mean shoot the ethnics living in Britain, and the British nationals living abroad?

YES AND YOU TAKE THE BLAME. FOR LETTING THEM DO THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Granted IT WAS NOT MY NUCLEAR MISSILE FROM POUND LAND THAT SANK THE EX PATS TO BE SHIP.
It was sank by imagrents arriving to come into Britain(there own worse enemy’s).
But you take the blame anyway, because you thought it in your best interest to do such a thing, its written all over your face "you are as bad as them" and if they get it you get it, law of advantages and the law also says "75+% tax. and i guess i will be getting a cut in that. BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE THE BLAME FOR WHAT I JUST DID, I SIMPLY CUT OUT THE MIDDLEMAN, AND "SANK RULE BRITANNIA -1" ON IT’s MAIDEN VOYAGE because they was apprentice ethnics.
call IT A MIX OF PERKS OF THE jOB AND ACT OF CHARITY.

Indeed you at home that never left these shores, along with foreign people abroad in there said counties that never emigrate.and are indiginous to the tee, are as bad as them. How could you be any different?
Do you really think we could have got away with being that racist for long ? No. Because they are all in together, Trust no one, you will be informed on at any moment in time. aproach with caution. It’s best to take the piss out of both sides and this is as we know called "Job satisfaction" You canot have your cake and eat it? Because it was a piece of cake.