I've been enjoying these podcasts while making dinner and whatnot.
MysticWicks endorsement: ""Oooh, I'm a Discordian! I can do whatever I want! Which means I can just SAY I'm a pagan but I never bother doing rituals or studying any kind of sacred texts or developing a relationship with deity, etc! I can go around and not be Christian, but I won't quite be anything else either because I just can't commit and I can't be ARSED to commit!"
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I was in a bar in Chicago when I told a close friend of 20 years that, despite being a lesbian, I was marrying a man. My friend and I hadn’t seen each other in a while, but we fell back quickly into our old intimacy — those long, rambling conversations we used to have in coffee shops all over Minneapolis. When the subject shifted to an activist group she was part of, I said I’d be glad to help, if they needed a lesbian on their board. She laughed, dismissively. “You can’t call yourself that anymore.”
Of all the weird reactions I’d gotten to my engagement, that one pissed me off most.
I had not been not surprised when my fiancé’s friends — Washington insiders with the respect for convention that city inspires — expressed shock when they discovered I was a dyke. We came from different worlds; with my long brunette hair and short skirts, I hadn’t read as queer to them. But no one had presumed to relabel me, to retrofit me to their categories — at least, not to my face.
But here was my fabulous Portland pal, trying to claim me for the Bi-Het team (which sounded like a synagogue rather than a sexual identity, and certainly not my own). She wasn’t the only one: An ex-girlfriend and a sophisticated poet cousin said the same thing, as if my lesbian license had been revoked.
So let me be clear, since I can’t be the only one: I am a lesbian marrying a man.
This is not semantics, or splitting hairs; it is fundamental to who we are — my fiancé and I. Immutable as height or eye color.
Gaming is part of who I am, I can promise you that.
Thus, when I see an article titled “Gamers are dead,” referring to the death of the popular trope of a pasty young man in a dimly lit room, it fills me with joy, because it means WE FUCKING WON. So many people are playing games now that they are popular culture. They are not going away. All sorts of cool things, that I like, are now things that a whole bunch of other people like! There’s enough space now for people to make games that are strange and disturbing and maybe highlight a different perspective of the world, because gaming is no longer a niche activity, it’s something that everybody does. There is room for art in video games. That’s awesome!
You slopebrowed weaseldicks with zero reading comprehension and even less critical thinking skills who think an article claiming “Gamers are dead” is something bad? Fuck me sideways with a sandblaster.
It’s like all you can do is look at this collection of words, scratch yourself uneasily, and then run off to look for grubs. Your reaction (and I am not making this up, because it’s been widely documented literally everywhere) to various articles proclaiming the death of the basement-dwelling, cheetos-huffing, poopsock-sniffing douchepistol, because games are so good now that they are common entertainment and thus everyone plays them, was to COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT by either:
a) Making misogynistic threats against a wide variety of female game developers and critics because somehow they’re going to keep games you enjoy from ever being made again
b) Being stupid enough to get sucked in by people busy making misogynistic threats against a wide variety of female game developers and critics, and supporting their idiotic crusade for the dumbing down of everyone everywhere ever.
With metadata suddenly in the spotlight, Brooks decided earlier this year to dust off his Ricochet program and tweak it to make it more elegant—he knew he’d still have a problem, however, getting anyone to adopt it. He wasn’t a known name in the security world and there was no reason anyone should trust him or his program.
Enter Invisible.im, a group formed by Australian security journalist Patrick Gray. Last July, Gray announced that he was working with HD Moore, developer of the Metasploit Framework tool used by security researchers to pen-test systems, and with another respected security professional who goes by his hacker handle The Grugq, to craft a secure, open-source encrypted chat program cobbled together from parts of existing anonymity and messaging systems—such as Prosody, Pidgin and Tor. They wanted a system that was highly secure, user friendly and metadata-free. Gray says his primary motivation was to protect the anonymity of sources who contact journalists.
“At the moment, when sources contact a journalist, they’re going to leave a metadata trail, whether it’s a phone call record or instant message or email record [regardless of whether or not the content of their communication is encrypted],” he says. “And that data is currently accessible to authorities without a warrant.”
When Brooks wrote to say he’d already designed a chat program that eliminated metadata, Gray and his group took a look at the code and quickly dropped their plan to develop their own tool, in favor of working with Brooks to develop his.
In the Tao te Ching, Laozi explains that beings (or phenomena) that are wholly in harmony with the Tao behave in a completely natural, uncontrived way. The goal of spiritual practice for the human being is, according to Laozi, the attainment of this purely natural way of behaving, as when the planets revolve around the sun. The planets effortlessly do this revolving without any sort of control, force, or attempt to revolve themselves, instead engaging in effortless and spontaneous movement.
Several chapters of the most important Taoist text, the Tao Te Ching, attributed to Laozi, allude to "diminishing doing" or "diminishing will" as the key aspect of the sage's success. Taoist philosophy recognizes that the Universe already works harmoniously according to its own ways; as a person exerts their will against or upon the world they disrupt the harmony that already exists. This is not to say that a person should not exert agency and will. Rather, it is how one acts in relation to the natural processes already extant. The how, the Tao of intention and motivation, that is key.
Related translation from the Tao Tê Ching by Priya Hemenway, Chapter II:
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I do not like the number five. I believe Five drives around in a red Mustang wearing mirrored sunglasses. Five lounges at lights with one arm out the window, slapping the side of the car to the beat of Van Halen’s “Runnin’ With the Devil.” I’d like to wipe that look off Five’s face. When running, Five bounds with an uneven gait, like a hare with a bum ankle. Five is prime, which I find obnoxious: why should a number refuse to divide by anything other than itself and one? Who does it think it is?
The flaw, according to researchers, causes most iOS and Mac applications to skip a crucial verification check that's supposed to happen when many transport layer security (TLS) and secure sockets layer (SSL) connections are being negotiated. Specifically, affected apps fail to check that the ephemeral public key presented by servers offering Diffie Hellman-supported encryption is actually signed by the site's private key. Attackers with the ability to monitor the connection between the end-user and the server can exploit this failure to completely decrypt and manipulate the traffic by presenting the app with a counterfeit key.
An attacker "can basically set up a connection and pretend to be Google.com," Matt Green, a Johns Hopkins University professor specializing in encryption, told Ars. The attacker "can basically say: 'Hey I'm Google, here's my signature. And since nobody is actually going to check the signature, [the attacker] just puts nonsense in there."
“Did you seriously just use one of your platforms to drop an SSL 0day on your other platform?” she writes, using the phrase “zero-day,” an industry term for a previously unknown security flaw. “As I sit here on my mac I’m vulnerable to this and there’s nothing I can do, because you couldn’t release a patch for both platforms at the same time? You do know there’s a bunch of live, working exploits for this out in the wild right now, right?”
Even do i just read now rather than posting, i will say some things because im outraged...
I know that its harder to discern the extremes and consequences of the drug war in a 1st World country that imports drugs rather than manufactures, and has an expensive infrastructure (AKA Police-State) so that the violence is only exersiced from State to citizens... because also, money laundering from Cartels actually benefits your county's elite - how many banks would not have died if it wasnt for the liquid assets the Cartels provided for you?
But people (specifically you RWHN), if you would pull your head out of your 'Murrican egocentrical perspective butt, you could perhaps consider the effects of prohibition ON OTHER COUNTRIES.
USA's drug black market funds Mexican and South American Cartels... the USA also forces their stupid prohibition agenda upon the Mexican government, and what is the result?
BETWEEN 60,000 TO 100,000 DEATHS IN 6 YEARS
So fuck off.
I brought this up earlier, but it was waved aside by RWHN.
Mexican kids aren't on the list to be protected when he says "the children".
I think i posted that from visceral outrage, and also a morbid curiosity on how he can rationalize an answer to that... also, offering up a larger context so that what is happening might become clearer, just in case anyone is sitting on the fence... prohibition isnt just about ruining individual marginal lives, but compromising the well-being of entire countries which might not be directly apparent.
As many of you know, National Review is not a non-profit — we are just not profitable. A lawsuit is not something we can fund with money we don’t have. Of course, we’ll do whatever we have to do to find ourselves victorious in court and Professor Mann thoroughly defeated, as he so richly deserves to be. Meanwhile, we have to hire attorneys, which ain’t cheap.
Dr. Mann complains about two statements: 1)that as "the man behind the fraudulent climate-change 'hockey-stick' graph," he is "the very ringmaster of the three-ring circus" on climate change; and 2) that he "could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet." Neither of these statements is actionable. Moreover, if Dr. Mann decides to pursue this matter, he and his research would be subjected to a very extensive discovery of materials that he has fought so hard to protect in other proceedings. Such materials would be required for National Review to defend itself.
Here, "even the most careless reader must have perceived" that Mr. Steyn's use of the term "fraudulent" did not accuse Dr. Mann of fraud in the criminal sense, but rather was used to call out his conclusions on climate science as intellectually suspect.