Slavery was law not because the government demanded it but because the (white) people did.
- slavery was law because it was acceptable for slavery to exist. There were black slave owners as well, by the way, plenty.
Today slavery is not acceptable for vast majority of people so to say that many businesses would have slaves simply because the laws regarding prohibition of slavery would disappear is disingenuous. There are *always some* people who would own slaves, laws or no laws. Vast majority of businesses today do not discriminate not because of laws but because it is bad for business.
My point stands, people must be able discriminate if they wish so, it is their right. Most people would not discriminate as business owners because it is bad for business. A business discriminating today will face PR nightmare in the social media and other news. IF they do not care about it then it must not be that relevant for vast majority of their customers because a business will very rarely take a hit to the bottom line for any type of ideology.
In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
[#]
You're also forgetting that slavery in America was an inborn condition. You weren't captured and made a slave. You were born into it. So one free black person didn't make his entire family free. Often blacks would buy their family members when they could.
54 (or about 1 percent) of these black slave owners in 1830 owned between 20 and 84 slaves; 172 (about 4 percent) owned between 10 to 19 slaves; and 3,550 (about 94 percent) each owned between 1 and 9 slaves. Crucially, 42 percent owned just one slave.[#]
to say that many businesses would have slaves simply because the laws regarding prohibition of slavery would disappear is disingenuous
Good lord you argue like Thunderfoot. That's not at all what I said. That's disingenuous. I suggested that without those laws businesses wouldn't have integrated then. I'm not saying if you banished the laws businesses would stop integrating now.
I'll tell you what you find me ANYTHING that suggests businesses were open to mixing customers in the era of Jim Crow because I have read up on black culture and I've seen nothing to suggest any businesses were open to that much less many much less most of them.
You need to read some more books, bud. Businesses want money. If some businesses would have actively discriminated while others hadn't, the former would promptly gotten out-competed and would have been gone. Only by government fiat can that kind of discrimination work. Get a clue.
I've read books, I've cited books. You're the one trying to spit that vague 'market forces fix everything' nonsense. Market forces would have said that keeping the black community enslaved was ideal because it minimizes your costs. Get outta here with that Anon nonsense.
This is stupid. You could just provide the gender to the rider and avoid the whole issue all together. That was, women who feel more comfortable with women drivers are free to do so and the same can be said for men. Drivers could also be given this info, and if the match making is done well enough, the system would be more flexible while providing the same result to both genders. Say a male driver might feel more comfortable driving only males to avoid said issue.
This is business not dating. That'd be like having a taxi service where you could reject a drive for being a "towelhead". That slides into "Eww she's black I don't want her" territory that we see on things like AirBnb. It doesn't solve the issue it just creates new ones.
If it's MY car I can decide who and what sex, color and/or what part of town I operate(period) Just as I can decide whether or not to work with a taxi service that discriminates. You can't fix stupid.
- that should be the case, but it's not. The collectivists in government backed by the mob have collectively decided that an individual running a business on his or her own private property must lose his or her rights to discriminate because they run a business now, though they had this right as individual.
You seem to forget that before government intervention, integration wasn't going to happen. Slavery was law not because the government demanded it but because the (white) people did. If it was up to businesses they would just not bother serving black people or sexual minorities, or muslims. And with no one to tell them not to suddenly being born looking like a Muslim affects where you can shop. That's WHY we have non descrimination laws for businesses.
Yeah.. that unified country. You're getting high off your own supply if you think this country doesn't have unity problems since the whole two towers attack.
OK, isn't it interesting though that the same type of service aimed only at white customers or only for a specific religion would cause a massive outcry and also would be illegal?
You think without those laws that southern business owners would not have been racist?
You ignorant jackass. The reason they were made into laws is because many business owners would not abide by them as unwritten rules so the government stepped in and made it against the law to not discriminate. This is historical fact. Read some fucking history you stupid piece of shit.
----- ===== -----
Your premise is that without Jim Crow Laws businesses would have integrated smoothly without issue?
You're flat out wrong Anon. Businesses made them put those Jim Crows laws on the books because they weren't going to integrate otherwise. Read a book or something. You know what you n ever read about regarding Jim Crow? Any business that complained about having to separate black customers from white.
Jim Crow was the name of the racial caste system which operated primarily, but not exclusively in southern and border states, between 1877 and the mid-1960s. Jim Crow was more than a series of rigid anti-black laws. It was a way of life. Under Jim Crow, African Americans were relegated to the status of second class citizens. Jim Crow represented the legitimization of anti-black racism. Many Christian ministers and theologians taught that whites were the Chosen people, blacks were cursed to be servants, and God supported racial segregation. Craniologists, eugenicists, phrenologists, and Social Darwinists, at every educational level, buttressed the belief that blacks were innately intellectually and culturally inferior to whites. Pro-segregation politicians gave eloquent speeches on the great danger of integration: the mongrelization of the white race. Newspaper and magazine writers routinely referred to blacks as niggers, coons, and darkies; and worse, their articles reinforced anti-black stereotypes. Even children's games portrayed blacks as inferior beings (see "From Hostility to Reverence: 100 Years of African-American Imagery in Games"). All major societal institutions reflected and supported the oppression of blacks.
Sure the ministers, politicians and scientists all say black people are inferior but hey businesses don't care about that because even back then they were run by automatons who aren't influenced by social pressures and clearly only care about money and literally nothing else./sarcasm.
I'll tell you what you find me ANYTHING that suggests businesses were open to mixing customers in the era of Jim Crow because I have read up on black culture and I've seen nothing to suggest any businesses were open to that much less many much less most of them.
It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.
I hope heterosexuality doesn’t survive, actually. I would like to see a truce on heterosexuality. I would like an amnesty on heterosexuality until we have sorted ourselves out. Because under patriarchy it’s shit.
And I am sick of hearing from individual women that their men are all right. Those men have been shored up by the advantages of patriarchy and they are complacent, they are not stopping other men from being shit.
I would love to see a women’s liberation that results in women turning away from men and saying: “when you come back as human beings, then we might look again.”
The full quote in question. I however think it's important to point out that this woman is a self acknowledged radical feminist, and political lesbian (1). By all indications she's on the forefront of this movement. She's hardly a typical member of the feminist movement. She's an extreme fringe. She's more comparative to conspiracy theorists. Part of why people rebelled against Gopman is because he wasn't a fringe Silcon Valley elitist. He was a typical Silcon Valley elitist.That's why VW points out that his credentials as being fluffed up in the way most valley techies are fluffed up.
So yeah nice try it's not nearly the same thing. She said that knowing how counter to everyone else's thoughts it was. She said it knowing people like you would compare her to a Nazi. Gopman on the other hand felt like he was just saying the same thing everyone was thinking. He said it with a casualness that suggested he thought he was being insightful and/or brave for saying it and should be lauded for doing so.
(1)Political lesbianism is the idea that women may choose to become lesbians, and should do so. It is epitomized in a phrase usually attributed to author Ti-Grace Atkinson: "Feminism is the theory; lesbianism is the practice."
As an american you're free to say whatever you want. You are not however free from recrimination. When you dehumanize people who are suffering, you kind of reap what you sow.
Most people don't like the homeless but most people dont use their high profile to call them trash and animals. When you cross that line from ignoring the homeless to slamming them. You don't open yourself up to a lot of sympathy. For non-physical clapback
It may not be illegal but what he did is in my opinion highly immoral just like what Justine Sacco did. While I acknowledge the backlash is extreme in both cases. I'm hard pressed to consider it too much. What he, and she, said is dangerous. They're representative of a mindset that punishes people for situations they can't help, and in Silicon Valley he is representative of one of the major influential forces. The ambiguous, tech industry white guy. It speaks to the environment that he felt completely comfortable saying what he said. He didn't fear reprisals. He didn't think he needed to consider his words and perhaps find a way to express an idea more elegantly. The culmination of his life maybe as a white dude, maybe as someone who has never been homeless, maybe as someone in the angel investment industry, maybe because it's something everyone around him says, all led up to a person, who felt he could call the homeless trash and that this was perfectly fine. How are we supposed to trust that Silicon Valley isn't just looking out for itself and the tech industry? How are we supposed to believe that they don't view the homeless as just another engineering problem that is best solved by simply moving it somewhere else? It makes it very hard to trust them when their bright stars are not just doing nothing about homelessness but they're actively bashing them.
What you see in these major scandals isn't just people yelling for no reason. People gleefully piling on isn't what made Justine viral, it isn't what ruined this guy's reputation. It's a rebellion against an entire sector.
In South Florida he had been itching to bust through the glass ceiling he’d reached: paying himself more than $100K while selling repaired cellphones on eBay.
I find this quote interesting on two fronts. One that they would use the term glass ceiling to describe the situation, here of a guy who is paying himself six figures selling repaired phones on ebay and can't seem to make more money. Two that this situation describes someone who felt like "a nobody" when he arrived in silcon valley. And this is in the piece that's supposed to be symathetic to him.
The day after Gopman got Valleywagged, a city bureaucrat from the mayor’s office emailed him, wanting to talk about how to “leverage the potential of the tech community for good in our city.” A PR company asked him to face off with a homeless-helping reverend at a church: “a chance to build some bridges in a city that’s under some pressure right now, and, a chance for you to help shape your story/message as well.” Gopman interpreted all these offers to mean: save your skin, and hook us up with your rich contacts.
I mean good lord the man can't even take a hand out of his mess properly. His mindset isn't "How can I prove to everyone that I'm not a callous heartless dick? Let me go put in some facetime with this church." it's "What can I give them so they'll leave me alone? I can throw money at this problem via all the rich people I know.". It's fundamental misunderstanding of why everyone hate him.
“I just kind of felt like this [homelessness] was going to be something I couldn’t walk away from—something I would become responsible for. I have to move forward to feel like I’ve done something to rectify, apparently, this wrong I’ve done to the city.”
Like apologies that aplogize "if anyone was offended" rather than owning up
I get annoyed when people don't put a readme.txt in the root.
Hm. Honestly, it had never occurred to me to do this, but that's a good idea. Back in the day of floppies, I'd regularly put contact info on the label in case I lost it, but I never really translated it to USB sticks. I'm more prone to breaking them than losing them, so maybe it doesn't matter anyway, but it's still a good suggestion.
Considering how much work I'm willing to put into getting someone their USB drive back anything I can do to make it better for someone else.
My flash drives are always Portable Apps installations so it's:
Just take a look at the USB Rubber Ducky sold by Hak5 (https://hak5.org/store). It'll emulate a keyboard and has a lot of available scripts for "penetration testing". I don't recommend going to that site from work since many businesses will treat it as a hacking site (even if the information is pertinent to your work).
oh that looks like fun. The LAN Turtle in particular looks like it has practical applications for me (I'm obviously not a pen tester)
http://hakshop.myshopify.com/p...
I'm not most people, but I did exactly this (with an SD card).
I went through photos on the card, managed to fine one that included a USPS package, transformed the image to read a partial name and was able to scan the barcode to get a zip, looked at other photos and compared them to Google/Bing maps and found the street but not the address, then found several profiles on the web, ultimately matching one photo to a Facebook account using a cropped version as the profile photo.
I then created a throwaway email account to create a throwaway Facebook account under the name of Natalie FoundUrSDCard or some such, messaged her and posted the uncropped version of her profile photo, and waited.
She responded and sent her uncle to come pick it up.
He did.
no man.. you're my hero. This is the level of comfort I want to have with file digging.
My guess is a fair amount of people open them just in an attempt to ID the owner so they can return it.
I'm guilty of this. I get annoyed when people don't put a readme.txt in the root. It's the first thing I do with a device. So far I've been able to contact 2 people and return 3 more. with one that had enough files that I knew what class they took but nothing with their name on it. It's interesting that I've never considered the malware with Windows no longer doing auto run to the great annoyance of my PortableApps install I figured:shrug: what're the chances.
Could the car act as the active device and the Smartphone as a passive device (when not powered)?
ohhh now that is interesting. giving my limited understanding I don't see why not. I'm not sure if that' sthe best solution though. We'd have to assess which is worse having a dead battery or a dead phone. Even if you put a battery backup in the door lock I think making the door the active device might drain it faster.
Women have better voices for marketing, plain and simple. The majority of commercials have female voices for the same reason these "robots" (sorry, I don't consider them robots) do.
Certain female voices are hard on the ears, but the range of woman's voices considered pleasant dwarfs male's.
TFA misses that basic information and jumps right to the typical rants about discrimination, which have been verified false over and over and over. Social engineering does not like or want facts, they want to manipulate. So far, they are doing just that because the populous does not fact check anything. Even those that claim to be scientific use bias at least as often than facts.
Yeah female voices are just more pleasant sounding and that's science. I mean commericals know this and everyone knows commericals use rigourous science and avoid social tropes that might give them a market edge if it's not been proven empiracaly.
Hopefully I can use my phone as an NFC card or something. Come to think of it, not sure that phones can do that without power...
An interesting question
Passive NFC devices include tags, and other small transmitters, that can send information to other NFC devices without the need for a power source of their own. However, they don’t really process any information sent from other sources, and can’t connect to other passive components. These often take the form of interactive signs on walls or advertisements.
I actually saw this quote last but this seems to clinch it. Regardless of how they would work in a situation where they both lack power they're both passive and therefore can't connect to each other.
The technology used in NFC is based on older RFID (Radio-frequency identification) ideas, which uses electromagnetic induction in order to transmit information.
...passive devices don’t require their own power supply, and can instead be powered by the electromagnetic field produced by an active NFC component when it comes into range [...] NFC technology does not command enough inductance to be used to charge our smartphones, but QI charging is based on the same principle.
Read/write mode, on the other hand, is a one way data transmission, where the active device, possibly your smartphone, links up with another device in order to read information from it. This is the mode used when you interact with an NFC advert tag.
In order to determine what sort of information is to be exchanged between devices, the NFC standard currently has three distinct modes of operation for compliant devices. Perhaps the most common use in smartphones is the peer-to-peer mode, which allows two NFC-enabled devices to exchange various pieces of information between each other. In this mode both devices switch between active, when sending data, and passive states when receiving.
Bah I was going to try to organize all of this into a comprehensive order to prove that I think sans power it wouldn't work but hopefully this is enough.
Contrary to your statement "They never told us WHY it got rejected." they clearly stated WHY. It is the 4th solar farm in the same small town of 800 people. It further states that the reason power companies want to build in these areas is because they can acquire land from not so wealthy people on the cheap, taking advantage of the financial situation many families are in (largely due to corporate influence on Agricultural business and economics at a much larger scale). It also discusses a professor who believes this causes long term damage to the agricultural industry.
Since I actually did read TFA, it makes me wonder who actually started the disinformation campaign.
The original article said this not the new "correcting" one? Because if so then that's on my reading comprehension because I remember a lot of the other points and i specifically don't remember reading WHY because that was my question at the end.
To be fair it was never said that "sucking up the energy" is WHY it got rejected. It's just said that they had to literally explain to someone complaining that this was not the case and this new article does not contradict that. They never told us WHY it got rejected. The original article was just on the stupid complaints that people brought up to try to reject it.
Here is the arstechnica headline linked to from slashdot:
"North Carolina citizenry defeat pernicious Big Solar plan to suck up the Sun"
http://arstechnica.com/science...
Fromt the more popular press, here's the Huffington post (yeah, I know), article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Solar Farm Rejected Amid Fears It Will 'Suck Up The Sun's Energy'
Residents were concerned it would stop plants from growing and cause cancer.
There is no other way to interpret the articles than that the town rejected the solar plant due to sun-sucking fears. The authors intentionally miswrote the story to give the reader a laugh at the rubes.
fair point. I was mostly referring to a specific article linked here on SD. But I didn't check the other headlines. That said headlines are intentionally clickbaity. I will go ahead and assume the text agrees with the article but if it doesn't that doesn't invalidate my point. Which was that the original articles never said that was what happened. They HEAVILY implied it through various means like even mentioning an idiot who thinks solar panels steal energy that plants need but they never said that's what happened. If those article however DO say that in the text then sure that's fair.
What fact did the 'Net or Social Media get wrong, or can you even answer that question?
1. The town does not oppose solar farms, just one at that location.
2. The fourth solar farm to be built was not rejected because it would "soak up the sun".
Who could imagine, a small rural town might have a couple of people who don't understand solar power, and that those couple of people would be paraded in front of the world as representing every person in that town. I hope you don't live somewhere where you might find some ignorant people who are made into your town spokesmen by a media looking for web traffic and eyeballs.
To be fair it was never said that "sucking up the energy" is WHY it got rejected. It's just said that they had to literally explain to someone complaining that this was not the case and this new article does not contradict that. They never told us WHY it got rejected. The original article was just on the stupid complaints that people brought up to try to reject it.
Though yes it's pretty important that they already have three solar farms.. that's almost negligant.
but these aren't new costs. These are costs they had when they started this. They should include those costs and start everyone at 5GB then if everyone is hitting the ceiling they could have raised to 10 and everyone would be talking about how awesome OneDrive is rather than how annoying it is.
AOL had unsend. It had unsend because everything was under their control. As far as I can tell it's the only way to do unsend and it's the first sign of a system that's entirely under their control. Send is send. You can't pull back a fired bullet and you shouldn't be trying to unsend messages either.
Slashdot Mirror
Slavery was law not because the government demanded it but because the (white) people did.
- slavery was law because it was acceptable for slavery to exist. There were black slave owners as well, by the way, plenty.
Today slavery is not acceptable for vast majority of people so to say that many businesses would have slaves simply because the laws regarding prohibition of slavery would disappear is disingenuous. There are *always some* people who would own slaves, laws or no laws. Vast majority of businesses today do not discriminate not because of laws but because it is bad for business.
My point stands, people must be able discriminate if they wish so, it is their right. Most people would not discriminate as business owners because it is bad for business. A business discriminating today will face PR nightmare in the social media and other news. IF they do not care about it then it must not be that relevant for vast majority of their customers because a business will very rarely take a hit to the bottom line for any type of ideology.
[#] You're also forgetting that slavery in America was an inborn condition. You weren't captured and made a slave. You were born into it. So one free black person didn't make his entire family free. Often blacks would buy their family members when they could.
Good lord you argue like Thunderfoot. That's not at all what I said. That's disingenuous. I suggested that without those laws businesses wouldn't have integrated then. I'm not saying if you banished the laws businesses would stop integrating now.
I'll tell you what you find me ANYTHING that suggests businesses were open to mixing customers in the era of Jim Crow because I have read up on black culture and I've seen nothing to suggest any businesses were open to that much less many much less most of them.
You need to read some more books, bud. Businesses want money. If some businesses would have actively discriminated while others hadn't, the former would promptly gotten out-competed and would have been gone. Only by government fiat can that kind of discrimination work. Get a clue.
I've read books, I've cited books. You're the one trying to spit that vague 'market forces fix everything' nonsense. Market forces would have said that keeping the black community enslaved was ideal because it minimizes your costs. Get outta here with that Anon nonsense.
This is stupid. You could just provide the gender to the rider and avoid the whole issue all together. That was, women who feel more comfortable with women drivers are free to do so and the same can be said for men. Drivers could also be given this info, and if the match making is done well enough, the system would be more flexible while providing the same result to both genders. Say a male driver might feel more comfortable driving only males to avoid said issue.
This is business not dating. That'd be like having a taxi service where you could reject a drive for being a "towelhead". That slides into "Eww she's black I don't want her" territory that we see on things like AirBnb. It doesn't solve the issue it just creates new ones.
If it's MY car I can decide who and what sex, color and/or what part of town I operate(period) Just as I can decide whether or not to work with a taxi service that discriminates. You can't fix stupid.
- that should be the case, but it's not. The collectivists in government backed by the mob have collectively decided that an individual running a business on his or her own private property must lose his or her rights to discriminate because they run a business now, though they had this right as individual.
You seem to forget that before government intervention, integration wasn't going to happen. Slavery was law not because the government demanded it but because the (white) people did. If it was up to businesses they would just not bother serving black people or sexual minorities, or muslims. And with no one to tell them not to suddenly being born looking like a Muslim affects where you can shop. That's WHY we have non descrimination laws for businesses.
Yeah.. that unified country. You're getting high off your own supply if you think this country doesn't have unity problems since the whole two towers attack.
OK, isn't it interesting though that the same type of service aimed only at white customers or only for a specific religion would cause a massive outcry and also would be illegal?
You mean outcry like say all the experts saying it's illegal.
You think without those laws that southern business owners would not have been racist?
You ignorant jackass. The reason they were made into laws is because many business owners would not abide by them as unwritten rules so the government stepped in and made it against the law to not discriminate. This is historical fact. Read some fucking history you stupid piece of shit.
----- ===== -----
Your premise is that without Jim Crow Laws businesses would have integrated smoothly without issue?
You're flat out wrong Anon. Businesses made them put those Jim Crows laws on the books because they weren't going to integrate otherwise. Read a book or something. You know what you n ever read about regarding Jim Crow? Any business that complained about having to separate black customers from white.
Sure the ministers, politicians and scientists all say black people are inferior but hey businesses don't care about that because even back then they were run by automatons who aren't influenced by social pressures and clearly only care about money and literally nothing else. /sarcasm.
I'll tell you what you find me ANYTHING that suggests businesses were open to mixing customers in the era of Jim Crow because I have read up on black culture and I've seen nothing to suggest any businesses were open to that much less many much less most of them.
Interestingly enough, feminazi mentioning that *all* men should be put in concentration camps are not held accountable... Go figure.
AN INTERVIEW WITH JULIE BINDEL by radfem collective
The full quote in question. I however think it's important to point out that this woman is a self acknowledged radical feminist, and political lesbian (1). By all indications she's on the forefront of this movement. She's hardly a typical member of the feminist movement. She's an extreme fringe. She's more comparative to conspiracy theorists. Part of why people rebelled against Gopman is because he wasn't a fringe Silcon Valley elitist. He was a typical Silcon Valley elitist.That's why VW points out that his credentials as being fluffed up in the way most valley techies are fluffed up.
So yeah nice try it's not nearly the same thing. She said that knowing how counter to everyone else's thoughts it was. She said it knowing people like you would compare her to a Nazi. Gopman on the other hand felt like he was just saying the same thing everyone was thinking. He said it with a casualness that suggested he thought he was being insightful and/or brave for saying it and should be lauded for doing so.
(1)Political lesbianism is the idea that women may choose to become lesbians, and should do so. It is epitomized in a phrase usually attributed to author Ti-Grace Atkinson: "Feminism is the theory; lesbianism is the practice."
As an american you're free to say whatever you want. You are not however free from recrimination. When you dehumanize people who are suffering, you kind of reap what you sow.
Most people don't like the homeless but most people dont use their high profile to call them trash and animals. When you cross that line from ignoring the homeless to slamming them. You don't open yourself up to a lot of sympathy. For non-physical clapback
It may not be illegal but what he did is in my opinion highly immoral just like what Justine Sacco did. While I acknowledge the backlash is extreme in both cases. I'm hard pressed to consider it too much. What he, and she, said is dangerous. They're representative of a mindset that punishes people for situations they can't help, and in Silicon Valley he is representative of one of the major influential forces. The ambiguous, tech industry white guy. It speaks to the environment that he felt completely comfortable saying what he said. He didn't fear reprisals. He didn't think he needed to consider his words and perhaps find a way to express an idea more elegantly. The culmination of his life maybe as a white dude, maybe as someone who has never been homeless, maybe as someone in the angel investment industry, maybe because it's something everyone around him says, all led up to a person, who felt he could call the homeless trash and that this was perfectly fine. How are we supposed to trust that Silicon Valley isn't just looking out for itself and the tech industry? How are we supposed to believe that they don't view the homeless as just another engineering problem that is best solved by simply moving it somewhere else? It makes it very hard to trust them when their bright stars are not just doing nothing about homelessness but they're actively bashing them.
What you see in these major scandals isn't just people yelling for no reason. People gleefully piling on isn't what made Justine viral, it isn't what ruined this guy's reputation. It's a rebellion against an entire sector.
I find this quote interesting on two fronts. One that they would use the term glass ceiling to describe the situation, here of a guy who is paying himself six figures selling repaired phones on ebay and can't seem to make more money. Two that this situation describes someone who felt like "a nobody" when he arrived in silcon valley. And this is in the piece that's supposed to be symathetic to him.
I mean good lord the man can't even take a hand out of his mess properly. His mindset isn't "How can I prove to everyone that I'm not a callous heartless dick? Let me go put in some facetime with this church." it's "What can I give them so they'll leave me alone? I can throw money at this problem via all the rich people I know.". It's fundamental misunderstanding of why everyone hate him.
Like apologies that aplogize "if anyone was offended" rather than owning up
I get annoyed when people don't put a readme.txt in the root.
Hm. Honestly, it had never occurred to me to do this, but that's a good idea. Back in the day of floppies, I'd regularly put contact info on the label in case I lost it, but I never really translated it to USB sticks. I'm more prone to breaking them than losing them, so maybe it doesn't matter anyway, but it's still a good suggestion.
Considering how much work I'm willing to put into getting someone their USB drive back anything I can do to make it better for someone else.
My flash drives are always Portable Apps installations so it's:
Just take a look at the USB Rubber Ducky sold by Hak5 (https://hak5.org/store). It'll emulate a keyboard and has a lot of available scripts for "penetration testing". I don't recommend going to that site from work since many businesses will treat it as a hacking site (even if the information is pertinent to your work).
oh that looks like fun. The LAN Turtle in particular looks like it has practical applications for me (I'm obviously not a pen tester) http://hakshop.myshopify.com/p...
Yeah right.
I'm not most people, but I did exactly this (with an SD card).
I went through photos on the card, managed to fine one that included a USPS package, transformed the image to read a partial name and was able to scan the barcode to get a zip, looked at other photos and compared them to Google/Bing maps and found the street but not the address, then found several profiles on the web, ultimately matching one photo to a Facebook account using a cropped version as the profile photo.
I then created a throwaway email account to create a throwaway Facebook account under the name of Natalie FoundUrSDCard or some such, messaged her and posted the uncropped version of her profile photo, and waited.
She responded and sent her uncle to come pick it up.
He did.
no man.. you're my hero. This is the level of comfort I want to have with file digging.
My guess is a fair amount of people open them just in an attempt to ID the owner so they can return it.
I'm guilty of this. I get annoyed when people don't put a readme.txt in the root. It's the first thing I do with a device. So far I've been able to contact 2 people and return 3 more. with one that had enough files that I knew what class they took but nothing with their name on it. It's interesting that I've never considered the malware with Windows no longer doing auto run to the great annoyance of my PortableApps install I figured :shrug: what're the chances.
Could the car act as the active device and the Smartphone as a passive device (when not powered)?
ohhh now that is interesting. giving my limited understanding I don't see why not. I'm not sure if that' sthe best solution though. We'd have to assess which is worse having a dead battery or a dead phone. Even if you put a battery backup in the door lock I think making the door the active device might drain it faster.
Women have better voices for marketing, plain and simple. The majority of commercials have female voices for the same reason these "robots" (sorry, I don't consider them robots) do.
Certain female voices are hard on the ears, but the range of woman's voices considered pleasant dwarfs male's.
TFA misses that basic information and jumps right to the typical rants about discrimination, which have been verified false over and over and over. Social engineering does not like or want facts, they want to manipulate. So far, they are doing just that because the populous does not fact check anything. Even those that claim to be scientific use bias at least as often than facts.
Yeah female voices are just more pleasant sounding and that's science. I mean commericals know this and everyone knows commericals use rigourous science and avoid social tropes that might give them a market edge if it's not been proven empiracaly.
Hopefully I can use my phone as an NFC card or something. Come to think of it, not sure that phones can do that without power...
An interesting question
I actually saw this quote last but this seems to clinch it. Regardless of how they would work in a situation where they both lack power they're both passive and therefore can't connect to each other.
[What is NFC?]
Bah I was going to try to organize all of this into a comprehensive order to prove that I think sans power it wouldn't work but hopefully this is enough.
Someone will forget to charge their phone when parked in the desert.
Let's just go ahead and call it properly.. throw ahead to Burning Man
Contrary to your statement "They never told us WHY it got rejected." they clearly stated WHY. It is the 4th solar farm in the same small town of 800 people. It further states that the reason power companies want to build in these areas is because they can acquire land from not so wealthy people on the cheap, taking advantage of the financial situation many families are in (largely due to corporate influence on Agricultural business and economics at a much larger scale). It also discusses a professor who believes this causes long term damage to the agricultural industry.
Since I actually did read TFA, it makes me wonder who actually started the disinformation campaign.
The original article said this not the new "correcting" one? Because if so then that's on my reading comprehension because I remember a lot of the other points and i specifically don't remember reading WHY because that was my question at the end.
To be fair it was never said that "sucking up the energy" is WHY it got rejected. It's just said that they had to literally explain to someone complaining that this was not the case and this new article does not contradict that. They never told us WHY it got rejected. The original article was just on the stupid complaints that people brought up to try to reject it.
Here is the arstechnica headline linked to from slashdot: "North Carolina citizenry defeat pernicious Big Solar plan to suck up the Sun" http://arstechnica.com/science...
Fromt the more popular press, here's the Huffington post (yeah, I know), article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... Solar Farm Rejected Amid Fears It Will 'Suck Up The Sun's Energy' Residents were concerned it would stop plants from growing and cause cancer.
There is no other way to interpret the articles than that the town rejected the solar plant due to sun-sucking fears. The authors intentionally miswrote the story to give the reader a laugh at the rubes.
fair point. I was mostly referring to a specific article linked here on SD. But I didn't check the other headlines. That said headlines are intentionally clickbaity. I will go ahead and assume the text agrees with the article but if it doesn't that doesn't invalidate my point. Which was that the original articles never said that was what happened. They HEAVILY implied it through various means like even mentioning an idiot who thinks solar panels steal energy that plants need but they never said that's what happened. If those article however DO say that in the text then sure that's fair.
whoa.. someone who actually read BOTH articles.. bravo good sir.
What fact did the 'Net or Social Media get wrong, or can you even answer that question?
1. The town does not oppose solar farms, just one at that location.
2. The fourth solar farm to be built was not rejected because it would "soak up the sun".
Who could imagine, a small rural town might have a couple of people who don't understand solar power, and that those couple of people would be paraded in front of the world as representing every person in that town. I hope you don't live somewhere where you might find some ignorant people who are made into your town spokesmen by a media looking for web traffic and eyeballs.
To be fair it was never said that "sucking up the energy" is WHY it got rejected. It's just said that they had to literally explain to someone complaining that this was not the case and this new article does not contradict that. They never told us WHY it got rejected. The original article was just on the stupid complaints that people brought up to try to reject it.
Though yes it's pretty important that they already have three solar farms.. that's almost negligant.
didn't read so i'm just guessing.
more conspicuously is how it will be enforced.
but these aren't new costs. These are costs they had when they started this. They should include those costs and start everyone at 5GB then if everyone is hitting the ceiling they could have raised to 10 and everyone would be talking about how awesome OneDrive is rather than how annoying it is.
AOL had unsend. It had unsend because everything was under their control. As far as I can tell it's the only way to do unsend and it's the first sign of a system that's entirely under their control. Send is send. You can't pull back a fired bullet and you shouldn't be trying to unsend messages either.