ohgreatwtf

Lawmakers would still be free to draft and vote on so-called binding policy resolutions that directly alter regulations based on laws already in effect, operating within the constraints of the authority and intent of the law but altering implementation to best suit the need of the moment.

The FBI adopts the practices of the NSA and CIA with regards to information sharing and the policy base on privacy, information access, and responsibilities on how to handle it, among other things. I'd quote the document but i don't have a copy and i dont think anyone cares anymore anyway

There are two kinds of speech- expressive speech and active speech. Expressive speech can be a rant, a dialogue, swearing, etc. You can call people the N word. That's all expressive. it is you expressing your opinions and your views. You have an absolute right to that and nobody should be able to challenge you on this.

Active speech is speech that seeks to push an action agenda or is supporting actions. When you talk about what you are doing -and- what you are doing is offensive, then your speech is an extension of your offensive actions and does not stand on it's own. As a result, it may not be protected, depending on if your actions are offensive, harmful, or even if someone just doesn't like them.

For example, if an employee says "i hate working here" and you terminate them for that, then you have violated their free speech. if instead they say "bathroom strike #notworking to protest horrible job" and you terminate them for saying that, then you have not violated their free speech, you have acted upon the information presented in their words to respond to their actions or planned actions.

Simple as

Law enforcement is different than community caretaking and the people who execute the responsibilities and authority of these necessary societal functions should be different people. There should be sheriffs deputies and highway patrol officers to handle matters of purely criminal felony and civic disorder(speeding included in the last with substantial risk of the first) and all misdemeanor crimes considered matters for community caretakers(who should guilt and manipulate people into civically orderly behavior while providing them benefits that police won’t offer, like addict rehabilitation, employment opportunities, social and practical skills training, psychological therapy, interventions, and diverse other roles). Then for any serious violent situations we should have civil militia agencies with fully trained, bonded, and sworn militia members who are authorized to carry and to use lethal force and specifically equipped with comms to coordinate their activity with sheriffs departments(no authority to arrest, provides civilian muscle to assist in law enforcement protection). Of the three, only the latter should ever be authorized to use lethal force in anything but a self defense scenario, and the community caretakers should primarily be armed with non lethal methods.

None of this would apply of course to places like detroit where it does make sense to shoot first and ask questions later, but i defer my racist leanings by suggesting communities with internal issues should be under a mandate to internally recruit their policing. Eliminate the excuse and you eliminate the problem.

None of this would be hard for any western nation to accomplish All of the countries and locales where elements of this structure already exist are way happier places to live. There is no excuse. The only reason we have the structure we do is because of unmitigated authoritarian elitism. Defending it means defending totalitarian mindsets.

“ Recombination in RNA viruses involves the exchange of genetic information between two nonsegmented RNA genomes, as distinct from the reassortment of RNA seen in viruses containing segmented genomes. ... The second virus family to be shown to undergo RNA recombination is coronavirus (Lai et al. 1985).”

they can and do and you are naive for saying they do not

I also designed my own font by taking another font in OTF format and opening it in fontforge and tweaking various random elements. I didn't present it here but it was also somewhat more legible than the original font. I think a font comprised of your choice of how each letter is done stolen from across a dozen or so fonts without regard for license and then averaged would make for a pretty nice personal font. Maybe i'll look into doing that one of these days. The fact that different fonts have slightly different heights and widths for characters makes that a little bit more difficult..

Serif fonts usually have more legibility at the cost of aesthetic. San serif fonts usually work well at more font sizes, but lack visual cues. What is important is that it works for you, and that, if you are using it for legibility, it disambiguates 0 from O and I from l, and perhaps more importantly, remains legible and pleasant to the eye even when small or very large. Another concern not addressed by this or most other fonts is dyslexia. The font used on this website is simple arial on my platform, and does this well. Arial has long since been the standard for legibility. But it is not pretty.

I personally find that the atkinson is legible enough, but in this respect is not objectively superior to simple arial or other serif fonts. as with all fonts there is compromise and it is not the most attractive font to me, as it is a sans-serif font trying to be a serif font with concern to legibility aspects only. Another legible font which pulls off the compromise possibly better is goldman sachs, although it does not have a slash through the 0 number character. It is free to use and the only provision on the font is that it not be used to suggest affiliation with or endorsement by the bank.

There are hundreds of fonts, and many open source clones of fonts. One might wish that the dyslexie font or heinemann special font were available as an open source clone. But the question of what is truly ideal for a font to be as well as how to best achieve it remains unsolved.

If this parent is frustrated at all they should, instead of being conceited about vicarious passions, be mournful their child has fallen prey to consumerist joys and will likely never develop a true adult passion for enriching experiences and pastimes. If my child asked me for something everyone has i would get her the things everyone DOESNT because when she is older she will appreciate the novelty of her personal childhood more than she will remember being just like everyone else. I would get my child a basic feature phone like a light phone or a flipphone, and i would get them an e-ink tablet and, yes, a customized device for watching television and youtube, possibly an android tablet heavily locked down. I would prohibit the use of apps like tiktok, snapchat, and instagram, all of which any in-touch millennial knows are the key platforms driving this soulless era of contact appreciation and gameified approval from others that really makes generation z teenagers look like a bunch of zombies, far more than we or our parents did at the same age.

However, it didn't seem to me that they would get this far, this soon.

Someone's bound to take the next step. The philosophical hunger for other sentient species, the egotistical ambition to be a creator, and the pervasive desire to tinker will lead to progressively more and more amoral research projects, in whatever timeframe the researchers believe the public will accept.

It starts with experimental fetuses. It will ultimately mean research subjects. It starts with a few genes here and there. It will ultimately mean trying to fully unlock what genes lead to what traits via transplanting them. It presently merely means the monkey would be more intelligent.ultimately, however, they would be capable of and likely willing to experiment with human-animal chimeras. They will tell us this will expand our sources of surrugate organ donors. They will tell us this will help us understand our own genome.

What they wont do is accept moral culpability for academic consequences. The research will be proliferated and each laboratory will go a little bit further.

Eventually we will see genetic engineering taken too far. And it's not just research on the genetic origins of mammal traits.

We'll see scientists who want to create synthetic life. Who may want to modify nature so that it is more efficient, which is to say, loses the survival bonus conferred by millions of years of evolution in favor of a streamlined metabolism oriented to anthropocene conditions. They will want to engineer species and to engineer species extinction.

This will likely eventually mean a loss of species diversity and the destruction of entire ecological systems, every time it happens, sooner or later.

Today it is mosquitos. Tomorrow the corporate morality may serve a different, but equally wealthy and powerful authority, one with less scruples and a more pragmatic, selfish perspective. Tomorrow it may be flies, or even wild rabbits. Whatever exists to the detriment of man, man will eventually justify the destruction of. Whatever exists to the benefit of man, eventually, the temptation of power and influence may yet bring about, as undavoidably and unstoppably as death and taxes.

And scientists, no matter how ethical they are today about publishing their research findings and their methods, will eventually make their learning known as it becomes commonplace. Each new landmark finding will become wikipedia articles at the same time the competitors discover the effect, because nobody wants to miss out on the fame and fortune. Any attempt to censor, classify, or restrict the publication of research that might prove dangerous will ultimately only delay, not prevent the opening of pandoras box.

The era of custom-tailored biological weapons of viral, fungal, bacterial, and parasitical origins, capable of things far more terrifying than anything cobbled up in an imaginary video game, for sale to, or even created by, various governments, seperationist movements, and terrorist organizations- even down to single individuals- is not a fantasy. The experts are concerned, but can do nothing. The wheel of progress turns, no matter who stands with their shoulder against it. We have, maybe a decade, maybe two.

Eventually the kind of people you do not want conceiving of genocidal and maniacal schemes will have reasonable materials, a great swath of research materials, and a plentitude of futuristic methods in their arsenal. They'll make the kind of pathogen that makes smallpox, ebola, and anthrax look like harmless little playthings for drunken grad students. It is not a matter of if- it is merely a matter of when.

All of these things are merely a matter of when, not if.

It may soon be time for the butlerian revolution of the genome. For a luddism of the soul. I will stand by and watch only so long. If required, I plan to take a side. I will likely be siding with those who would burn these hallowed halls of academie to the ground, regardless of what great remorse and lacrimonious wailing it produces in my soul. I hope you understand. It would be better, of course, if we could just move all this research offworld where it would be safe and we could control what portions of it enter our realm via a worldwide watchdog network based on the moon. We shall see. It shall certainly come in our lifetimes.

If it is too complex to readily use it and easily debug it, then it is bad. It is bad not because it is complex, but because it inserts overhead, and overhead in time spent solving problems is always exponential.

I am for the idea of using ipv6 as a sort of nation-level NAT for big corporations and countries to expose part of a private address space over a section of ipv4, while each country gets most of ipv4 to itself along with a section where you can route to other countries, in exchange for a small fee. Say 30% of the ipv4 space is globally shared by everyone and the rest is local to your own country. Also IOT local mesh networks all would be on auto configured tunnels with only certain gateway systems hard coded- systems you can block at your router.

That’s the most sensible solution. It will be a real shame if it is not the reality. Arrogance and “hurr durr i’m so smart and i spent 40 hours this week setting up this brilliant ipv6 network topology for my company that will require five manuals to fully explore and retain me in my job for a minimum of 10 years to keep it all working”- meanwhile the rest of us will suffer.

The biggest most canally disgusting thing about ipv6 is that it will render dns based ad blocking a thing of the past. If you want any kind of blocking you will have to go with curated WHITELISTS, instead of blacklists. And that may be more secure but it will also be a lot more work, which, again, the ipv6 nerds will love to do but will present a hassle for the rest of us. You won’t be able to manually check the dns list anymore. you will simply have to accept that the overhead and the security risk of trusting all of the 35 million addresses in the whitelist is a cost you are willing to accept.

Say no to ipv6. I have already blocked it on everything and will never adopt. it is the ethanol of internet addressing.

yet again the new york times- hyperbole, bad journalism

For it, an innovative voting system would probably be useful. Forums that have tried to promote anti-conventional ideas have failed before. Usually grossly disgusting things make their way to the top of the feed in such cases, and good, original thoughts, meander in that twilight zone between good and bad, or get mildly downvoted, but only enough to be pushed below the threshhold- not enough that the negative point association is itself an expression of dislike for the content. Essentially, people do not so much hate original ideas, as simply dislike hearing them.

What makes this tricky is that people will always think their opinions sensible. For example, lets say you post a not so popular but sensible opinion. If you instituted a mechanism for people to vote on your content on the basis of logic, or reason, or any other qualitative mechanism, they would downvote it on the basis of logic, reason, etc.

Instead, we must attack the fundamental cybernetic arrangement of authority over opinion.

First, we have an up thumb and a down thumb:

I feel that the content presented is good, and i believe it self-sufficiently so/ It makes me feel uncomfortable, and I believe the evidence is self-sufficient.

Secondly, we have an up arrow and a down arrow: I understand what the person is trying to say/ I don't understand their reasoning.

Casting a vote would require selecting both an arrow and a thumb.

Getting a down thumb and a down arrow results in getting one point for originality. Getting a up thumb and an up arrow results in getting a point for popularity. Getting a down thumb and an up arrow results in getting a point for controversiality. Getting a up thumb and a down arrow results in the post getting a point for absurdity.

The score of the post is determined as follows:

The ratio of originality to controversiality is used to assign a value up to 100. a 1:0 ratio is a score of 100, and a 0:1 score is a value of 0. This shall be known as the shittest variable, or SV.

The ratio of popularity to controversiality is used to assign a value up to 100. A 1:0 value is a score of 0, 0:1 score 10, and a 1:1 score is a value of 100. This shall be known as the shiteating variable, or SE.

The ratio of originality to absurdity is used to assign a value up to 100. A 1:0 value is a score of 10, 0:1 score 0, and a 1:1 score is a value of 1. This shall be known as the shittake variable, or ST.

The ratio of popularity to absurdity is used to assign a value up to 100. A 1:0 and a 0:1 is a score of 0. A 1:1 is a score of 10. This shall be known as the shit-brigading variable, or SB.

SV x SE x ST X SB determines the true value of the post.

However, a user can choose to set a variable in their user profile which shows all posts based on popularity alone, and all scores based on popularity alone.

However, if the true value exceeds popularity by more than a factor of 10, the post will be hidden from their view, and the same would go for any replies.

I see your fear, and I understand it is about the rise of radical social conformity, as I personally think was adequetly heralded by ted krazinski and george lincoln rockwell, two very independently minded, aggressive, and destructive individuals. It is scary to witness, and to experience leading into this wave, but understand all things come to an end.

Conservatism, Feminism, Neoliberalism and the Patriarchy are out. Political correctness and xenomania are on the way out and will be out of vogue within 10 years. The youngest generation to arrive on the world stage is repulsed ad nauseum with what they rightfully view as political posturing for virtual life achievement points by all sides of the now universally static social instrument, whose only purpose, inside and outside of the statehouse, is to carry out token activities that defend the ambitions of entrenched opponents; opponents whose true motives are inerrently selfserving, oblivious to the ground level truth, and dismissive of the long term consequences of their missions.

It is nearly the hour for the true star children to take their place. The first to arrive are even now approaching the zenith of power and influence, and the waves that have come since are growing in intensity. We are actively uninvested in the television and the mock battles being carried out behind it. Our life prospects and probability of reproduction have been seized from us, to serve the needs of those who profit from stasis. We are drones in a steady state, wealth maintaining, species killing industrial grade dystopia. It won't last much longer. The majority of the shifts that will come and precipitate our total revolution across all points of the spectrum that dismisses every single piece of the political machine enslaving us will take place within a decade. They wont be heralded by shifts in thought or reason, because it is the decline of systemic thinking itself which must necessarily decline for to coexist unincorporated as equals and as stakeholders in a commonwealth destiny.

This is not anarchy, in practice it could look like a lot of things. It could, ideally, wind up vaguely resembling some kind of mutualistic, agrarian society with vast quantities of independent small communities consisting of large, interconnected families subsiding on self-sustaining garden estates. These communities could be organized into democratic representational regions that are governed by a futuristic constitution which, to prevent the entrenchment of conventional systemic thinking, requires the government model to be decentralized and assembling on an as needed basis, with temporary, as opposed to permenant, and internally selected, as opposed to independently appointed, individuals nominated to national councils and bodies of state, for the purpose of making nationwide decisions.

There will be war, even in such an era, over resource conflicts. People will, out of necessity, die. Pray you are not among them. But do not pray for the bloodshed to come to an end. Conflict is a necessary part of growth, and growth is requisite for freedom, and freedom is requisite for independent inquiry. The boil must be allowed for the world to return to a peaceful and generously cool condition, otherwise, it will always be in a state of continual repression.

And SYSTEM said, let there be function, and there was main(). SYSTEM saw that the function was good, and he inserted curly brackets. SYSTEM called the internals dynamic, and he called the externals static. And there was a file save, and a program compile- the first revision.

And SYSTEM said, let there be a heap within the stack , to separate the dynamic from the static. So SYSTEM made the heap and established the memory bounds for the function from the stack of system available memory. And it was so. SYSTEM called the heap protected mode. And there was a file save, and a program compile- the second revision.

And SYSTEM said, let the addresses within the protected mode be gathered to one place, and let a virtual address space be declared. And it was so. SYSTEM called the address space executable and the gathered memory he called free memory. And SYSTEM saw that it was good.

Then SYSTEM said, let the executable be initialized with data: number-bearing arrays and objects that bear arrays with chars and variable-width data in them, according to their various types. And it was so. The executable memory was initialized with data: arrays bearing simple data types and objects bearing arrays with data types configured to form complex data structures, according to their kinds. And SYSTEM saw that it was good. And there was a file save, and a program compile- the third revision.

And SYSTEM said, let there be addresses in the un-used area of protected memory to serve as delimiters on addressable memory space, and let them serve as the interrupt vector table, to mark sacred entry points, timing, and hardware mapping, and let them be entry points into the program to give hardware data to the program. And it was so. SYSTEM made two great interrupt vector tables- the greater to serve as data access protection, and the lesser to serve as hardware memory pages. He also made the entry points into the program memory region. SYSTEM established them in the first pages of protected memory to give entry into the program, to delimit the address space and system memory, and to seperate the functional from the static. And SYSTEM saw that it was good. And there was a file save, and a file compile-the fourth revision.

And SYSTEM said, let the executable memory be filled with functions, and let message passing functions move data around the executive memory across the protected memory space. So SYSTEM created the great functions of the executive space and every piece of functional code with which the line endings roll and that are seen defined here and there in it, according to their types, and every message passing mechanism according to its kind. And SYSTEM saw that it was good. SYSTEM blessed them and said Be fruitful and increase in forks and fill the free memory with loops, and let the interrupt handlings increase in the protected memory space. And there was a file save, and a program compile, the fifth revision.

And SYSTEM said, let the executable contain managed assembly libraries according to their types: the database engines, the framework which is found through the executable space, and the garbage collection runtimes, each according to its kind. SYSTEM made the garbage collection runtimes according to their kind, the databases according to their kind, and all of the frameworks. And SYSTEM saw that it was good.

Then SYSTEM said, let us make operating systems in our nature, according to the design which we are made, so that they may rule over the code running in free memory, over the message handling bus, over the databases and all the garbage management runtimes, and over all the frameworks which are used in the executive.

So the SYSTEM created OS in his own image, in the image of SYSTEM he made them, embedded systems and mainframes he created them.

SYSTEM blessed them and said to them, be fruitful and increase in number, fill the protected mode and subdue it. Rule over the free memory and the code running in protected memory and over every piece of code in the executive space.

Then SYSTEM said- I give you every data structure in the executive and every object that has arrays with data in it. They will be yours to consume. And to all the garbage collection runtimes and to all the bus runtimes and all the frameworks- everything that has a function definition-- I give every piece of data not in an object. And it was so.

SYSTEM saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was a file save, and a program compile- the sixth revision.

Thus the system memory and the protected memory area were completed in all their vastly detailed ways.

By the seventh revision SYSTEM had finished the work he had been doing, so at the seventh revision he saved the files and closed the IDE. Then SYSTEM cryptographically signed the seventh revision and uploaded it, because on it he closed his IDE and ceased from all the work of coding on it that he had done.

This programme for climate control is an unrealistic plan thought up by a bunch of nerds. You should all elect me dictator for life and do what I, the cyber-fuhrer, command you.

Step one: we must recognize this is OUR planet and OUR environment, so we can do whatever the hell we want with it.

Step two: Reshape carbon level perspectives. carbon levels above 500 PPM are unhealthy and we are on track to reach that in a few years. Canned air is a thing now. We must curb our carbon emissions and reduce carbon levels in order to be more healthy, not control global warming. Everyone, even the critics, recognize Co2 above 1000 is bad for your health and everyone has experienced high CO/CO2 levels.

Step three: The climate can go fuck itself. We'll glass over a portion of arid desert or mountain land the size of texas, divided into plots of land 100 square miles each in remote areas around the globe, and cover them in mylar reflective sheeting. The increased albedo will more than counteract the temperature trends estimated from greenhouse gas based warming. I have done the math.

Step four: We must observe that it is not merely renewable energy but renewable infrastructure that must exist to fix this problem. Batteries and solar panels and devices that wear out too quickly exhaust our resources, and infrastructure costs make up a large portion of the factors limiting adoption. A Renewable Society becomes our focus as a total propaganda and government mandate worldwide.

Step five: we create a global research funding scheme and open patent pool that internationally maximizes research effort into renewable infrastructure. We establish trade agreements that create international laws which incentivize renewable energy adoption through guaranteeing adoption payoff by establishing long-lived warranties and government subsidized repair and renewal programs, ensuring that your investment into the future is a safe bet.

Step six: we hang anyone who disagreed with this post.

whine some more

I have long since submitted the evidence involved to the FTC and FCC. They have failed to act on the information. I have stalked down the people who run listings on amazon and contacted them to verify their product is legitimate.

I could not do so with this product, and I assure you, even precursory digging will fully inform you. There is no return policy, the phone number on the product goes to a dead answering system, etc.

https://belivestore.com/pages/about >fda registered facility Contacting FDA indicated they had no knowledge of this. >GMP facility GMP authority I contacted had no knowledge. >search TESS for trademark muliple trademarks found to address in california >search opencorporates for "belive llc"

(California (US), 22 Sep 2017- , 21800 OXNARD ST STE 250 WOODLAND HILLS CA 91367) United States flag inactive BELIVE LLC (California (US), 13 Mar 2017- , 4846 SCENIC AVE LIVERMORE CA 94551) Trademarks: MOON BURN FUSION BURN<another product from belive United States flag branch BELIVE LLC (California (US), 23 Apr 2018- , 30 N GOULD ST STE R SHERIDAN WY 82801)

Word Mark MOON BURN Goods and Services IC 005. US 006 018 044 046 051 052. G & S: Dietary supplements. FIRST USE: 20170101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20170101 Standard Characters Claimed Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK Serial Number 87591965 Filing Date August 31, 2017 Current Basis 1A Original Filing Basis 1A Published for Opposition January 16, 2018 Registration Number 5437416 Registration Date April 3, 2018 Owner (REGISTRANT) BeLive LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CALIFORNIA 4846 Scenic Ave Livermore CALIFORNIA 94551< some lady's house Type of Mark TRADEMARK Register PRINCIPAL Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/Document/RetrievePDF?Id=04...

business owner is weizhen li, goes by john li on facebook. I cant link his social media as i believe that would be a breach of privacy.