newsroom
Discord ID: 398858182455459853
87,357 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 305/350
| Next
huh?
i was saying whitehouse security is probably shit and microsofts is more secure for buisness clients.
ah I found out the service
it is a microsoft system
for her personal email
yeah it said that in the article
i'm assuming its the buisness level services though
i'm not sure if they offer custom domains to regular consumers?
It'd have to be
otherwise there would be no encryption level services. Besides getting emails is pretty secure. Sending them on the otherhand is not.
true.
i'd still trust microsofts services to actually be secure.
unless they've put backdoors in for the nsa :/
I don't think any company would put backdoors... if it ever leaked that they did, they would lose trust
eh true, nsa puts the backdoors in for you without you knowing
the more extremists get outed the better
They *are* an extremist group with *ties* to white nationalists.
That doesn't mean they are a group of white nationalists.
Also, if you look at the actual source, which i just did.
Its a document from WA state that *says* that the FBI says that.
Second hand information. Whether or not the FBI actually does or not is actually undetermined afaict
oh wait
thinking about it the FBI also branded juggalos as dangerous people but i don't think that went anywhere
juggalos are only dangerous to the nation's meth supply
are they even still around
They've also labelled ANTIFA as domestic terrorists, FWIW. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/antifa-domestic-terrorists-us-security-agencies-homeland-security-fbi-a7927881.html
the left encourages domestic terrorism
i would say domestic violence but that has a whole different usage
I'm sure they do encourage domestic violence as long as its against the correct targets.
i'd say the left encourages *civil* unrest.
not that terrorism is wrong, just people seem to interperate "terrorism" differently
They talk about "Washington Law Enforcement" but it's really just a county sheriff office. I'm from Clark County, WA. They're not exactly "in the know" so this may have been an assumption.
As if there was any question that "Green" movements are nothing more than anti-human movements, they already want to save mars
(to be fair, it's not nearly as bad an article as that. But it is gizmodo)
There's a viable argument to be made that we're actually all Martians
No.
My point here is to say that we may have every right to that planet
>.>
Remember, what i am referring to is microbial transport on meteors. An ELE level asteroid strikes Mars and kicks up all sorts of stuff into space. On some of those rocks life in the form of simple spores or the like manages to hang out. That rock hits Earth billions of years ago and voila, that life then spreads on Earth. Or vice versa, we could find that Martian life, if it exists, started here. We may never be able to tell which is which.
We should make a serious effort to look for signs of life on Mars before we stop being careful of contaminating the planet. If we make a serious effort and find none, we let loose. If we find microscopic life and it is the same of Earth's based nucleic acid scheme, we let loose. If we find it's radically different, we catalog it and study it...and let loose.
Ultimately I don't see us going hands off on a world for some microorganisms
On the other hand, there are some interesting points to be made about who ends up "owning" Mars. It's a lot more difficult to cross interstellar space than it is the Atlantic. Governments and billionaires currently will govern who goes and what gets established there. I think now is a good time to be discussing how much right they will have over who goes. What will that mean for liberties? Will people have to indenture themselves to pay for passage, becoming essentially slaves to the initial settlers and rich sponsors?
Now THOSE are the real questions about Martial equality in my mind
And lots of sci-fi takes on this general theme
For good reason
the problem is mars doesn't really have much of an atmosphere in comparision to earth.
it's about a hundred times thinner, meaning that the sun's rays beat on it much harder. Think of the ultra violet rays that strike our planet, and then consider them being a hundred times more powerful.
True, but if we are patient it looks like there are the necessarily resources to terraform it. It'll just take a thousand year.
not much at all could survive that.
Genetic modification, baby!
meaning there's not really any life to be found on mars.
only remnants of it
Then we put life there, starting with microbes and plants.
so no, we shouldn't look for life on mars, because we won't find any.
We'll make our own life there.
We may actually find life. Microbes in some places, But i'm kinda betting it'll look like primitive Earth microbiota.
it's not feasibly possible for something like that to exist on a planet without atmospheric protection against the violent rays of the sun
It is if it's underground or in shaded places. Or the poles where the suns rays are oblique.
That's also where the water likely exists
it would have to be miles under the surface.
radiation would leak pretty far in, as well as heat.
Meters would likely suffice, or less in shaded places or the poles. I think it's worth exploring with robots before we send people. It'll be about 15 years before we send people so make use of the time.
I like the robot probes, anyway. My biggest philanthropic beneficiary is the Planetary Society. They actually fund things like solar sails and instruments on NASA, ESA, and JSA probes.
@Grenade123 just read it. Full of npc garbage.
As far as we know, there's no life to displace on mars in the first place (Besides very small lifeforms perhaps). As for its environment, it's currently inhospitable and couldn't get much worse for supporting life, let alone intelligent life.
That article reads like absolute trash
We need to decolonize the sciences, says the Afro woman, quick call the witch doctors. We need lightning.
Lol
From the article: "But Iโm disturbed by the way people talk about going to Mars as if the planet is ours..."
Who's is it exactly then? It sounds like this person has conceptualized an idea of intelligent life on mars without any evidence for such an idea. I don't think microbes are very concerned with much, let alone what we do on mars
Until some other civilization claims the planet as their own, there isn't much stopping anyone from claiming mars as their own. These people sound worried about a microbe genocide. I don't think we can make smallpox blankets that small though
Mars is mine
I just claimed it
Lol
I think we should send them all up there to consult with the apparent microbes. Let them breathe the atmosphere so they can understand the microbes โlivedโ experiences.
@taekahn too bad you don't have the means to defend your claim (here come the ancaps)
Oh, don't I? Don't I?
Recreational nukes are the answer. Duh.
Reminder not to click on Gizmodo links.
Let them starve.
Use archivers to access all Gawker properties, and use your hosts file to block all Gawker domains.
<http://archive.fo/xeNuR>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20181120180317/https://gizmodo.com/decolonizing-mars-are-we-thinking-about-space-explorat-1830348568>
@Salacious Swanky Cat I believe they are called McNukesโข
Lol.
Oh my god I missed the best part of the article "Itโs been troubling to me to hear people erasing whatโs going on here on our own planet both from an environmental standpoint and an indigenous rights standpoint when they talk about going to other planets."
She actually thinks there's indigenous people on mars
what the actual fuck
"Gizmodo: What does a Decolonized Mars look like?"
It looks a lot like never going to fucking Mars because of muh microbes
The west: _ we cant go to mars and colonize, mu triggering_
China: _Thank for dropping out of the race we take the entire planet_
@H E C K it just proves the NPC meme. They hear the word colonize and automatically repeat far left talking points. They are incapable of distinguishing the difference in the situation.
Got archive link?
For the Mars article? scroll up
it starts
I think they threw Netflix in there for the sake of the acronym
Otherwise they'd be railing against FAG
Netflix is seriously relatively benign to be thrown in between Facebook and Google
FAG stocks are dropping
We're hoping someone can come in from behind and finished them off
Quick burn off your shares of fag companies
We can't support anything Fag stands for.
We're decidedly anti-fag
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5bf4214ae4b0d9e7283d6355/amp
"How can we increase the cost of living in NYC further?"
I doubt this will even make the news. Antifa is getting more bold. People are going to start forming self-defense leagues soon. Then things will get real ugly.
Have you seen my minds account?
Weimar Germany 2.0
It was about the same shit: The Left started the crap and the right finished it.
who do you think has more reason to fight:
a) the one fighting for an imaginary thing
b) the one fighting for his family and children.
Antifa are terrorists. I'm not advocating for violence but if they all get genocided, I wouldn't lose sleep over it
lol they put netflix in there just so they don't spell out fag
https://youtu.be/Az3GHKQ3W44
Any thoughts on this lads?
Tim reported on this?
Fagacea Quercus falcata
Who am I kidding. Feminists won't make a god damned peep about this.
Adult MtF transgender converts to Judaism and is circumcised by a rabbi.
The rabbi is arrested for FGM.
well, at least he ruled it a states rights issue
I can't open that site (royal Britannia) can I have an archive please.
That Judge deserves to be in JAIL or in a Muslim Country.
Should be in jail for limiting federal power? And pointing out a potential serious error in how this federal bill was put through Congress?
It could really go either way.
"There is nothing commercial or economic about FGM," Friedman writes. "As despicable as this practice may be, it is essentially a criminal assault. ... FGM is not part of a larger market and it has no demonstrated effect on interstate commerce. The commerce clause does not permit Congress to regulate a crime of this nature."
What is the non cultural reason why they are doing fgm? Is it to make vaginas fit tighter around their small penises?
The argument is to prevent female promiscuity
In Islam women are seen as a wanton sex
To be fair, that view is pretty pan-cultural, in various degrees.
Cultures with a history of women as an extension of their men, yes.
Property of father, then husband, and finally son
As I said, pretty pan-cultural, yes.
Wanton*
wonton is a soup
And wonton sex sounds 2kinky4me
Broth-els.
Sorry, I'm on my phone and can edit only so much.
And I just read the article. While I hold FGM abhorrent in a way few can, I still agree with the judge. I'm 10th Amendment Cat and this is a victory for that disrespected Amendment.
I encourage all states and territories to follow Michigan on making the practice illegal.
But it's a state and not a national issue.
So, having unmutilated female genitals is not part of the basic human rights you believe the national government should protect?
Eric Weinstein talks about that with Rogan
FGM means that women are forced to cut off parts of her vagina so that she can't have fun beeing fucked
though more about MGM
Another victory for gender equality. โ
Again, nothing stops the states from making it illegal. I would hope they would do so.
It is a class B felony in Oregon where I vote and in property. It's still in deliberation in the Washington State legislature where I own property and my family are all voters. I'll see about having them all contact our representatives about returning SB 6563 to consideration and a vote.
i love how when its women being forced to do it, its "horrible", but when its men, thats just common sense.
My son is not circumcised despite his father and grandfather having been.
i am not referring to you, i'm referring to society at large
think about it, for the right its religious. to the left its only right that men are hurt. So to both sides its just common sense
Oh. Just thought I'd make that clear. I personally have a passion against genital mutilation that goes very deep.
I hope you appreciate the irony.
Oh I do. But it is the irony that is the cause of my passion on the subject.
It's a personal choice that no one should foist on a child.
Unless a child cannot effectively urinate, leave them alone until they can make thier own choice.
And live with the ramifications of that choice.
If it is legal in Michigan to cut off pieces of your infant's genitals, are there other laws that prevent you from, for instance, cutting off your infant's feet or hands? If not, why not, and if so, why are genitals excluded from this law?
Because circumcision probably. Not sure as I am not up on MI laws.
Male circumcision I should say
Its only "legal", becuase Muslims/Minoritys do it
Christians and Jews circumise boys as well.
I don't see why it should be legal tbh
I agree, which is why MI and other states are passing laws against at FGM.
They should all do so
```Christians and Jews circumise boys as well.```
a) that doesn't make it better
b) its worse for Females than for Boys as the boys still can enjoy fucking afterwards, the females can not
But the bottom.line is that it's not a federal issue.
There is a legitimate affliction, where the cure is penis circumcision.
My translation to ebglish: narrowation of foreskin [sic]
All the judge said is that it was not a federal issue.
I thought you all were for smaller, more limited government
This is exactly what that means
If it's not given to the Feds, it belongs with the states or the people
The Congress tried to justify thier law under interstate commerce which is ludicrous.
Not everyone here is
It's time we stopped pissing on the 10th Amendment by saying quite literally everything we do is interstate commerce
I am though
I'm just trying to figure out what legal loophole allows any form of circumcision at all, male or female.
Depends on the Issue
Is there a specific law saying you can cut off these bits but not those bits, etc.
It is a medical procedure that isn't reversible, so normally you can only do neccessary procedures.
I have no idea, really, Atkins. Again, I elected not to circumcised our son despite it being traditional in our family.
so the only thing left is religious freedom
Laws typically proscribe, not allow.
So, there would need to be a law banning, I don't know, medically unnecessary mutilation.
Which, among circumcision, would also stop most piercings.
My sons are not circumcized. The youngest one had an issue where his foreskin was too tight and painful to pull back/clean around. Surgery was an option that thankfully didn't need to happen as they now have ointments that help
I'm assuming there must be some law which proscribes cutting off pieces of your children, and I could understand how there could be an exception for male circumcision. Not that I agree with the practice but I can understand how it could be there due to historical norms. But I really can't believe there is an exception specifically for FGM.
I don't think there is? I believe a parent could have a portion of their child's ear hacked off, for example.
That is murkey water. You would need to write it so children can give blood samples, have their hair cut, teeth removed, nails trimmed, cancerous or infected growths removed etc.
No, I think most of those are pretty clear medical necessities.
The nature of hair and nails as unliving I think would stop it from being mutilation.
Your definition of necessity is different than mine
If you intend to make a permanent alteration to your child's body, it ought to be only under strict medical necessity.
Temporary alteration like haircuts are not that big of a deal.
It isn't medically necessary to remove teeth to avoid crowding and future dental deformities
If your mom gives you a dopey haircut you'll grow out of it.
I would be OK with letting some children choose to have fucked up teeth if it means some children are not forced to have their genitals mutilated.
It isn't medically necessary to do a blood test to find out if you have a nutrient deficiency
Having blood drawn does not permanently alter the body.
It could. What if the vial of blood you pull had a specific antibody that hadn't yet been recorded into the bodies immune system?
You're being silly now. I can appreciate it if you are intending to play devil's advocate, but if you are trying to form an argument as to why FGM should be permitted in the US, then I don't see the point of talking to you. That's not an area where I'm willing to compromise.
How is that silly? That bodily function happens many times a day especially for children.
The idea I want to impose on you is not that we shouldn't have laws on subjects such as these. But rather knee jerk reactions often have unintended side effects.
Yes, I did kind of throw that out as a quick spitball.
I am using the (probably unfounded) assumption that professional lawmakers would make a better law.
Many states have already passed laws so it's definitely possible.
These conversations although adversarial in nature are good
It is only a matter of time...
Are they counting loot boxes?
From the article
'Out of sight'
Gambling Commission executive director Tim Miller called for a "joined-up approach" to keep children safe.
"There's no doubt that today's figures on children and gambling should make people sit up and listen," he said.
"But while discussions about children gambling might conjure up images of kids sneaking into bookies or sitting alone on their iPad gambling on an online casino, our latest research paints a more complex picture.
"The most common activities that children gamble on are not licensed casinos, bingo providers or bookies.
"Instead we found children preferred to gamble in informal environments, out of sight of regulation - private bets between friends or playing cards with their mates for money."
Hmm
Though it is pulling the eyes of politicians more sharply towards lootboxs.
@DrYuriMom the nominal number they give is very misleading given there were over 100 million less people in the u.s.
Voting age population looks to be about a 110 million difference
@ExceptionalFeather Ocasio-Cucktez?
57.5% to 40.7% for the actual margins in 1974
https://apnews.com/c7cfe11a42974e64a3d7f713511eb646
Sounds like they might have bystanders, but I can't tell. Would be yet another set of bystanders hit by Antifa last weekend.
rip antifa
Trump using Pelosi as a punching bag for the next 2 years is going to be hella entertaining
โ Democrats won House popular votes by largest midterms margin since Watergate โ
By NBC News
Historically the incumbent party loses the Senate and the House by a large margin. The Dems failed to do this. They didnโt take the Senate, and barely took the House.
This attempt to spin it otherwise is a hilarious failure. The โ Popular voteโ couldnโt mean less in House races. Theyโre decided on a local level. This is basic stuff.
http://archive.today/yqzfg
How many ppl here don't like the idea of affirmative action? Raise your hands.
How many people here think that the popular vote doesn't count? Raise your hands.
What is I told you the electoral college and the representative democracy system were affirmative action at work?
It's only bad when I don't like it.
Affirmative action is racial discrimination to fulfill arbitrary quotas over merit.
Our representative democracy ensures that a few cites interests donโt rule the whole country. The States of America wouldnโt have joined together without this safeguard. Your comparison isnโt valid.
It's still a type of affirmative action
Bingo ^^^
No it isnโt
Yes it is
Having government Representing your interests isnโt affirmative action
An action by the government to protect the minority
A reminder since this event is in the news again in association with Trump being accused of obstructing Justice by the media.
Trump fired Comey at the recommendation of Attorney General, and Deputy Attorney General, Jeff Sessions and Rod J. Rosenstien for his handling of the conclusion of the investigation into Hillary Clintonโs emails, and his refusal to acknowledge his mistakes.
He โ usurpedโ the Attorney Generals authority on July 5, 2016 by announcing in his conclusion of the case that it should be closed without prosecution. At this press conference he released derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. He also cast his decision as a choice between โ speaking โ or โ concealing โ the Clinton emails incorrectly.
This decision to fire Comey was backed by former Attorney and Deputy Attorney Generals Laurence Silberman, Jamie Gorelick, Micheal Mukasey , Eric Holder , Alberto Gonzales, Larry Thompson, and Donald Ayer.
Below is the memo, read it yourselves.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3711116/White-House-Fires-James-Comey.pdf
@Exiled Sentinel It might be being used to push a racial motive at the mo but that doesn't change what it is and what it does.
They are both governmental actions to protect the minority
By that logic freedom of speech is affirmative action because it protects unpopular speech. You guys are silly.
Change my mind
I'm not saying it's a bad thing
Just saying that at a baseline they are the same
@Exiled Sentinel Go and eat shit. 'It's only bad when it helps the ppl I don't lik.@
FUCKIN LOL#
Muh representative democracy is affirmative action guys ! If you canโt get on my big brained level you can eat shit<:NPC:500042527231967262>
Tell me why it isn't.
In my country one person equals one vote. Why doesn't it in yours?
it doesnt either in my country
Don't obfuscate.
If it did, the south here would never have a say in anything.
I actually already did..
Why doesnโt our country work like your shitty country? Well, as Iโve said before we have government representatives at a local level. Thatโs what the House does you simple foreigner. Read up on the basics . The notion that the House should be decided by the popular vote of the country is laughable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives
Read a bit up on America maybe
simply because of population number differences
I didn't say I disagree. I said that the electoral collage is a form of affirmative action. I places some ppl above others. If it was pure meritocracy then one persons vote would be worth the same as any others.
Can you explain what the merit of one person one vote is, since it doesnt require any merits whatsoever other then being able to vote which is universal for everyone.
87,357 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 305/350
| Next