Show Posts
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.
To clear a few things up ... the UK does not have historical racial tensions like the US does.
We didn't have black slaves here. Not even the royal family had slaves. No one can claim to be descended from slaves 200ish years ago in the UK.
We didn't have Jim Crow laws or any equivalent. We never had segregation or separate laws. It has never been against the law to marry interracially.
Black people in the UK are immigrants or descended from recent immigrants. They have been given every opportunity, They weren't brought against their will.
Our police don't have guns. Black people aren't being shot by the police.
So, why am I watching British sports stars bending the knee? Why is the British press so desperate to import America's problems to the UK? Why are they telling black people in the UK that they are victims and white people that they are colonialists? The British aren't colonialists. We are descended from the people who didn't get on the boats ... people who chose to stay at home and not be colonialists.
I don't mean to speak out of line, but I tend to agree with Parsifal (or whatever the hell he calls himself now), if it's just downloads, what are you going to gain by encrypting the link?
The hypothetical risk here isn't that a third party will see what you're seeing (they can do that anyway in this case, as you pointed out), but that you can't technically be sure that the file you received was served by us. If I wanted to download something from the library over HTTP, I have to trust that my ISP or another malicious actor doesn't MitM me and force-feed me a file different from what I requested. The whole point is that if you request something via HTTPS, you have some reassurance that what you're receiving is what the sender intended.
Trump seems to be doing everything he can to make sure as many people as possible die from COVID-19 before he leaves office. Just consider:
--He is convincing people not to wear masks at a time when his own health experts and everyone else in the world says they're essential to slowing the spread of the virus;
--He's pushing for reopening at a time when we're seeing our worst surge in cases yet;
--He's holding superspreader events with thousands of people crammed into a small space, in places where the virus is hitting worst;
--He wants there to be less testing, despite his own health experts and everyone else in the world saying that adequate testing is essential to slowing the spread of the virus.
Once you recognize that Trump is trying to murder the American people with the coronavirus, his repealing of an act that provides coverage to many Americans who need it during the worst health crisis of our lifetimes suddenly makes a lot of sense.
Who knows what his motivation is? Revenge against a populace who refused to universally embrace and love him? Some kind of Lex Luthor-like supervillain complex? The ol' Rick Sanchez explanation: he just does it because he can? Who knows? But his actions are making one thing very clear: he wants record numbers of the American people to die this year, and is doing everything in his power to make that happen.
I do think there's a racist element too but I'd suggest the history of it all is a bigger factor.Right, I don't think people try to be racist, not all people, not today. Most of us didn't grow up in the Jim Crow days, and we have no idea what 'real racism' is. Yet we have implicit biases that makes us do things, or react to things we ordinarily wouldn't, and this could definitely be a result of our racist history.
As for the UK, I wouldn't say racism is fixed here but it's more covert and subtle. There's good evidence that English sounding names do better when people are applying for jobs, for example. Things are changing but there's no quick fix, attitudes take generations to improve. I should note here that I'm speaking as a Londoner, it's a pretty multi-cultural bubble in the UK, outside of London things may be different.
It's good for America's economy in the short term. It's bad for the whole world in the longer term. And this may be a surprise to most Americans but the US is in the world, it doesn't exist in isolation.I can't agree more with the sentiment that not enough people in this country pay attention to our environmental/ecological impact on the world. It's truly sad. I wish I could do more on this subject, to educate people around me that this is a dire threat to the survival of the entire world!
HTTPS is only useful for protection against malicious third parties, as well as for a small boost to user privacy.While you are obviously correct here, the third party scenario is a decent rationale to move to HTTPS. I do agree that the benefits wouldn't be massive, and that it could/should be treated as low-priority, but it's an improvement nonetheless.
Plus, you know I love to butter Google up.
Just like minorities get trained to pull the race card every time they want to do what they want to do without logical consequence.
I don't know much about the history of black people in the UK, so maybe "white privilege", as we know it in the US, is not an issue for the UK?You mention that you have been privileged in your life because you have money. This is not the same as "white privilege". There are plenty of wealthy black people. White privilege is being advantaged solely because your skin is white. nothing to do with being rich or poor.Understood. And I'm not saying it doesn't exist at all, but my feeling is in the UK at least a black person who grew up in the circumstances I did would have had most of the same advantages in life as I did. The incidents in the US where 911 is called on black people for spurious reasons are unfortunate although I would suggest they are rare, statistically speaking, and the stupid bint in Central Park who called the police on someone got sacked for it, so hopefully that will deter others from doing things so silly.
QuoteI disagree. If you have "young, white, male, dressed in a certain way", I think you will be stopped less than if you are black. Doesn't mean you won't draw suspicion, but not as quickly. However, I don't have any proof of this.
You're right, the stats show you're right, more black people are stopped. But that's because they commit a disproportionate amount of crime. So their race is absolutely part of why they might get stopped but there are other factors and I'd suggest it's based on statistics more than racism.
And yes, police in the US do kill a disproportionate amount of black people but, again, looking at the crime stats you can see why they might have more encounters with the police and thus more opportunity for these incidents to occur. The fact remains that if you're unarmed then you are very unlikely to be killed by the police no matter your race.
Racist BLM supporter discovers that she's white.
There is no "white" DNA. So the whole thing is dumb. Out of curiosity, how did you decide she is racist?
We find a thread filled with people who are not even Americans, constantly spewing hate for a foreign leader.
Sorry, but you don't really live here and consequently don't know what is best for America. You may not have the same problems, or socialist and corporate influence infesting your laws and social norms. You did not grow up in America or with its values. This criticism of Trump is rather tenuous, based on a foreigner's interpretation of however their media and culture wants to display the America-first nationalist President Donald Trump.
I personally do not really give a flip who your leaders are and why they are important for your country at any given time. I don't live there, did not grow up there, and wouldn't know. I don't care about how bad Angela Merkel, or whoever, is. I don't know what's best for Germany. It would be pretty ridiculous if I went to some German forum and constantly complained about her.
If blinking = refraction, then why does the light only blink when the camera was at 5 inches above the surface and not at 12 inches and other higher elevations where refraction would also need to occur? The blinking stops at slightly higher elevations. The other elevations seem to discount that.
Nonetheless, even if there was refraction present, that still would not explain the inherent coincidence.
BLM's demands don't even make any sense. 90% of their problems can be traced back to their own crime infested neighborhoods, yet they have no plan of action to clean them up. So all of the good black citizens in them will suffer immensely when police are defunded, or budgets are slashed. They're just making the feedback loop 10x worse, pissing off a lot of people, and getting some brand icons changed.
You can tell that the light is being refracted by the fact that the more distant lights flicker on and off (when the actual lights are steady).
Similar experiments like Experiment Two above have been conducted.
Frozen Lake Proves Flat Earth - Runtime: 3m23s
Hernando County Waterways - Runtime: 2m34s
The answer to these is "a coincidence did it."
Thanks for sharing these, I’m pretty intrigued by the frozen lake video. I am honestly baffled for the time being, since I believe the earth to be round.
I think the experiment needs to be done with lasers instead of beacons. This would rule out the possibility of light refraction or reflection.
That shows that the light is intermittently blocked by something. My contention is the something is the curve of the earth but at times refraction allows those lights to be seen, just not consistently. On a FE why would the light source ever be blocked?
Similar experiments like Experiment Two above have been conducted.
Frozen Lake Proves Flat Earth - Runtime: 3m23s
Hernando County Waterways - Runtime: 2m34s
The answer to these is "a coincidence did it."
Quote from: timterrooI didn't get any of this from media propaganda.And yet I've heard of all of that before, in the form of liberal media opinion pieces.
>"Trump MIGHT be getting tax breaks based on my personal speculation."
>Trump has "failed businesses" yet is a successful billionaire.
Now try arguing that Trump is bad with the assumption that those opinion pieces you get your information from are biased liars. Can't be done. You are a parrot to what you read, the opinions of others, and instantly believe this propaganda.
Trump is a billionaire and already has enough power to do as he wishes. He cannot be bought, which speaks volumes for his suitability as President.
It's a giant tax break for the wealthy, or maybe they do have a genuine heart - I don't want to be the judge of that. It's def a tax break though.That's the thing, though. He's not donating his salary to charity. He's simply not taking it.
To be fair, we don't know if he literally isn't receiving a cheque or if he is taking it and donating it back. Considering Trump's track record with truth and accuracy, I would not be surprised in the slightest if the latter were true or even if he were taking it and just lying about it.
If this is true, and I doubt it is, regardless whether or not he gave up any money, he's still filthy rich.Interestingly enough, a common argument among his detractors is that he's not rich at all. They'd tell you that he has relatively little wealth, and that most businesses he's ever held went bankrupt.The fact that he gives up his salary as president is evidence of that. If he can give away $500,000/year, chances are he makes substantially more than that.Then again, there aren't many rich people who would donate $500k to the US government. Indeed, most of them would happily take the extra dosh. What gives?