Article 43

 

Tuesday, August 15, 2023

The Dot In An Email Address

image: bad pc

It was bad enough learning EMAILS LEFT UNOPENED on a providor’s email server are officially “abandoned” after 180 days, giving the government and ISPs the legal right to open and read them.  The last effort to put an end to that - HR 387 - didn’t pass congress.

It was a hundred times worse to realize that email SPAM filters peek and read inside emails, and there may no way to SHUT THEM OFF.

The automated systems scan the content of emails for spam and malware detection, as many other email providers automatically do, but also as part of Google’s “priority inbox” service and tailored advertising.

Google’s ads use information gleaned from a user’s email combined with data from their Google profile as a whole, including search results, map requests and YouTube views, to display what it considers are relevant ads in the hope that the user is more likely to click on them and generate more advertising revenue for Google.

Are you one of those people who has a GMAIL ADDRESS like firstname.lastname[at]gmail.com?

Read THIS:

Dots don’t matter in Gmail addresses

If someone accidentally adds dots to your address, you’ll still get that email. For example, if your email is johnsmith[at]gmail.com, you own all dotted versions of your address:

john.smith[at]gmail.com
jo.hn.sm.ith[at]gmail.com
j.o.h.n.s.m.i.t.h[at]gmail.com

Your Gmail address is unique. If anyone tries to create a Gmail account with a dotted version of your username, they’ll get an error saying the username is already taken.

For example, if your address is , no one can sign up for .

Your account is still private and secure. Emails sent to any dotted version of your address will only go to you.

For example, johnsmith[@]gmail.com and j.o.h.n.s.m.i.t.h[@]gmail.com are the same address and go to one inbox.

GMAIL SNOOPING

Posted by Elvis on 08/15/23 •
Section Privacy And Rights • Section Broadband Privacy
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home

Monday, August 14, 2023

Sagan and Star Trek

image: universe
 
We’ve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements - transportation, communications, and all other industries; agriculture, medicine, education, entertainment, protecting the environment; and even the key democratic institution of voting profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
- The Dumbing Down of America
 
My brothers and sisters, if anyone is detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness. Take care that you yourselves are not tempted.  Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. For if those who are nothing think they are something, they deceive themselves.  All must test their own work; then that work, rather than their neighbors work, will become a cause for pride.  For all must carry their own loads.
 
Emotional contagion can occur at political rallies, in combat zones, in mass protests and revolutions, at public killings, or in ecstatic religious rites. Within families, emotional contagion can set the tenor of a household. A sensitive child may absorb a mother’s non-verbally expressed depression or a father’s pent-up anger and feel it as their own.
- Transforming Empathy into Compassion, Psychology Today
 
Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow. If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh, but if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life from the Spirit. So let us not grow weary in doing what is right, for we will reap at harvest time, if we do not give up. So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the good of all and especially for those of the family of faith.
- Galatians 6: 1-10
 
Emptiness and compassion go hand in hand. Compassion as transaction - me over here, being compassionate to you over there - is simply too clunky and difficult. If I am going to be responsible to receive your suffering and do something about it, and if I am going to make this kind of compassion the cornerstone of my religious life, I will soon be exhausted. But if I see the boundarylessness of me and you, and recognize that my suffering and your suffering are one suffering, and that that suffering is empty of any separation, weightiness, or ultimate tragedy, then I can do it. I can be boundlessly compassionate and loving, without limit. To be sure, living this teaching takes time and effort, and maybe we never entirely arrive at it. But its a joyful, heartfelt path worth treading.
- Thich Nhat Hanh

---

Cosmos 1980

Human history can be viewed as a slowly dawning awareness that we are members of a larger group.

Initially our loyalties were to ourselves and our immediate family, next, to bands of wandering hunter-gatherers, then to tribes, small settlements, city-states, nations.

We have broadened the circle of those we love. We have now organized what are modestly described as super-powers, which include groups of people from divergent ethnic and cultural backgrounds working in some sense together - surely a humanizing and character building experience.

If we are to survive, our loyalties must be broadened further, to include the whole human community, the entire planet Earth.

Many of those who run the nations will find this idea unpleasant. They will fear the loss of power. We will hear much about treason and disloyalty. Rich nation-states will have to share their wealth with poor ones. But the choice, as H. G. Wells once said in a different context, is clearly thoe universe or nothing.

SOURCE

---

image: star trek

The Radical Politics of Star Trek

By Simon Tyrie
Tribune UK
August 14, 2023

Star Trek envisioned a world beyond capitalism, racism and oppression where technology is harnessed to end all forms of exploitation and injustice - its lessons remain as relevant as ever.

It’s the year 2364 and a tatty old space shuttle containing former Wall Street capitalist Ralph Offenhouse, who was cryogenically frozen in 1994, has just been discovered floating through space by a starship called the Enterprise-D. Upon waking, Offenhouse discovers that, although science has found a cure for his previously terminal illness, his bank accounts and investments have all gone. To his horror, not even his beloved The Wall Street Journal has survived the ravages of time.

A lot has changed in the past three hundred years, the ships captain Jean-Luc Picard tells him. ‘People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We’ve eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We’ve grown out of our infancy.’

It’s particularly striking that in a genre that trends towards bleak, dystopian futures, Star Trek is an outlier in science fiction for offering an optimistic vision for humanitys future. In fact, while it may be overly simplistic to say that Star Trek depicts a socialist society, its utopianism owes much to the ideas of Marx in that it imagines a future where collectivism triumphs, money is obsolete, and every material need is met.

Beyond Capitalism

Spaceship and its crew whose enduring mission is to ‘boldly go where no one has gone before’. But as Captain Picard explains in First Contact (1996), ‘The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.’

Instead of working just to live, humans are free to spend their time exploring the cosmos, or inventing, or making art - and sometimes doing all three. This optimistic view of human nature is in stark contrast to films such as Pixar’s WALL-E, which follows the right-wing line of thinking that achieving a post-scarcity society (solving what Keynes calls the economic problem) would lead to sloth and hedonism, and ultimately the demise of humanity.

In Star Trek, geopolitics is a thing of the past. Instead, there’s the United Federation of Planets, a United Nations-inspired organisation founded on the principles of liberty, equality, justice, progress, and peaceful co-existence, which is dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and the universal enfranchisement of sentient life. It is a world in which economic conditions allow each person to contribute to society according to their ability and consume according to their needs.

Its worth noting here that Star Trek is a product of a political era that preceded the post-Fordist, neoliberal conditions, when different futures were not only imagined but contested. The Original Series aired between 1966 and 1969җa fertile period for the political imagination in spite of great unrest.

Gene Roddenberry, Star Trek’s creator, certainly subscribed to this optimism. He believed that humanity, rather than being doomed to self-destruct, was destined to evolve out of our political myopia. It was thanks to Roddenberry that The Original Series, though dated by today’s standards, was ahead of its time with its multinational, multi-ethnic, and multi-gender crew. Famously, the show televised the worlds first interracial kiss (in an episode banned by the BBC), and Martin Luther King once said that Star Trek was ‘the only show I and my wife Coretta will allow our three little children to stay up and watch.’

Today, Roddenberry’s flaws and hypocrisies are well documented. According to his last wife, Magel Barrett, he identified as a communist. But we know from the many accounts of his unethical business practices that he was also obsessed with making money. He preached peace and love but was infamously difficult to get along with. And he flew the flag for feminism while being a notorious womaniser. 

Rather than focus on Roddenberry the man, I find it more interesting to evaluate Roddenberry the salesman. When the show aired, there was widespread unrest; the US was being torn apart by race riots and anti-war protests; and the then very new and horrifying threat of nuclear Armageddon loomed large on the horizon. But rather than offer an extrapolation or exacerbationђ of these conditions, as culture is prone to do, Roddenberry saw the appeal of a brighter future.

Perhaps he recognised this appeal because he knew better than most HOW AWFUL humans could be.

When the show was rebooted in the 1980s, the political horizon was narrowing. Yet it was in this decade, just two years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, that Star Trek became most notably Marxian. This was all thanks to the introduction of the \replicator’, a futuristic 3D printer that can create anything out of recycled matter, thus solving the problem of scarcity. So far, so science-fiction.

But in Star Trek, technology alone doesn’t bring about utopia. As we learn through the introduction of the Ferengi - an alien race whose culture centres around greed and profiteering - the socialisation of the replicator is a political choice. The Ferengi’s replicators are privatised, whereas replicators in the Federation are publicly owned.

While concepts such as warp-speed propulsion and teleportation remain firmly in the realm of science fiction, many of Star Treks technological predictions have materialised or are coming to pass - including the concept of 3D printing at the molecular level and the increasingly EXPLOITATIVE APPLICATIONS of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. What capitalism renders unthinkable is the politics behind technology: that developments in technology might benefit us rather than USHER IN further alienation.

Star Trek provides an antithesis to how capitalism predisposes us to view technology, allowing us to imagine what society might look like if technology were used purely for improving our quality of life. Instead of following this path, the morsels of convenience we’ve received through technological advancements are only enough to numb us to the realisation that weve become locked into a cycle of consumerism and surveillance capitalism.

Constructing Utopia

Another utopian aspect of Star Trek is its depiction of solidarity. Roddenberry had many ‘rules’ he insisted upon the show following, but his most infamous is what’s become known as ‘Roddenberry’s principle’: a mandate that conflict must never be between the main characters, only with external forces.

Roddenberrys argument was that, for the utopian conditions of Star Trek to be believable, the characters must represent the best of humanity. In the episode ґRemember Me, the ship;s doctor Beverly Crusher notes that crewmembers are disappearing. But each time a person disappears, they become forgotten by everyone else; to the rest of the crew, they never existed.

In a typical drama, this would be whats called a ґCassandra Truth plotline: the hero discovers a conspiracy, nobody else believes them, and so the hero has no choice but to solve the mystery alone. But in Star Trek, rather than treat the doctor as though she has lost her mind, the possibility that people are being erased from existence is taken seriously and investigated by her colleagues.

Instead of the showҒs drama revolving around interpersonal conflict, problems are overcome through teamwork, and very rarely as the result of one persons heroism. ItҒs one of the most unique aspects of the show; as viewers, weve come to expect conflict between characters to be one of the most fundamental aspects of drama.

There’s comfort in knowing that no matter the scale of the problem, you can trust the characters to communicate their thoughts and feelings, weigh the situation objectively, and work together. But more than comfort, Star Trek continuously offers examples of cooperation, conflict resolution, kindness and empathy that are in short supply in most modern dramas.

To me, this is perhaps the most radical element of Star Trek. In simply showing the possibilities of cooperation, the show offers something for us to all strive towards - and solidarity is no doubt the first building block required for constructing utopia.

Sci-Fi Optimism

When the time comes for the twentieth-century capitalist Ralph Offenhouse to return to twenty-fourth-century Earth, he’s at a loss. ‘What will I do? How will I live?’ he asks. ‘Whats the challenge?’ The problem is, Offenhouse has never allowed himself to imagine an alternative to capitalism. And to someone that has lived his whole life in a prison, there is nothing more daunting than being set free. Like the prisoner in PLATO’S CAVE, the instinct is to return to the darkness that hes accustomed to.

In a sense, we are all Offenhouse. We might not all suffer from his peculiar strain of capitalist Stockholm syndrome, but we all, naturally, struggle to imagine an alternative way of living. We all live under the same political system that snuffs out any threats to its existence by design, and it becomes harder to imagine an alternative each day that this system entrenches itself deeper into our lives.

Here lies the power of Star Trek. It’s easy to dismiss utopian science-fiction as escapist, as though capitalist escapism is a lower form of art realism, but what good does the constant reminder that everything is bad do for society? Negativity is hardly inspiring. And besides, as Gene Roddenberry recognised (politicians take note), optimism sells.

About the author: Simon Tyrie is a musician and activist from Luton. 

SOURCE

Posted by Elvis on 08/14/23 •
Section Revelations • Section NWO • Section American Solidarity • Section Spiritual Diversions • Section Science
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home

Thursday, August 03, 2023

The Trump Show Encore 2

image: trump
 

The Orchestrated Cases Against Trump Explained

By Paul Craig Roberts
August 3, 2023

President Trump has broken no laws. The charges against Trump brought by corrupt Democrat appointees are for propaganda purposes and for sidelining the candidate who the Democrats know will win the next election. If the Democrats did not regard Trump as the winning candidate, they would not have shown their corrupt colors with four false indictments.

Many of the charges are based on interpretations or assertions of law NEVER BEFORE seen in any court other than Stalin’s purge trials in the 1930s.

Start with the realization that the three charges and a pending fourth are charges against Trump while he was in office as President of the United States. The Democrat’s charge that a President of the United States committed numerous felonies amounting to four separate felony trials. Ask yourself how likely is this.

Remember, also, that the Vietnam War, Gulf of Tonkin, bombings of Cambodia and Laos, Manning’s revelation of war crimes, etc., etc., real crimes all, never resulted in indictments of responsible administration figures, except for Manning who was indicted for blowing the whistle on crimes. In Washingtons justice, it is not those who commit crimes who are indicted. It is those who expose crimes.

Let’s start with the fake case of Trump’s retention of some national security documents. Presidents and presidential appointees are allowed copies of their work in office. Among the many boxes of documents packed up for Trump there were allegedly 31 classified documents. On the basis of these few pages a nonentity named Jack Smith, a total failure as head of the Justice DepartmentҒs “Integrity Unit,” managed to create out of thin air 37 felony counts against Trump. Not a single one of these charges has any basis in law. No one has ever been charged under these phony charges. Moreover, President Trump had the authority to declassify documents, which he says he did.

But the Democrats know they own the media, and the law schools, and the governing class that defines what is acceptable. For these corrupt people, getting rid of Trump is all that matters. Every lie that serves the cause of removing a threat to the corrupt establishment is permissible.

The 37 felony charges contain no evidence that Trump knew what was in the boxes, assuming anything was. It is just an assertion. After the boxes were seized, anything could have been put into them. Why would anyone believe the FBI after so many FBI lies and scandals have been revealed?

In 2012 Judicial Watch sued to force President Bill Clinton to turn over records in his possession, but Obama appointee judge Amy Berman Jackson said the court had to ability to second-guess a president’s assertion of documents to which he was entitled.  The judge said that “since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records.”

But Jack Smith has brought a felony case based on nothing but Jack Smith’s assertion that he, not President Trump or a federal judge, knows what documents the President has a right to retain. As for integrity, Jack Smith scores zero.  From a headline STORY THIS MORNING“Special counsel Jack Smith’s team made a startling admission in its case against former President Donald Trump, acknowledging in a new court filing that it failed to turn over all evidence to Mr. Trump’s legal team as required by law and falsely claimed that it had.” In other words, Jack Smith lies, so why believe his case?

If I understand the nonsensical case, one of Jack Smith charges is that Trump violated the law by letting a lawyer lacking the security clearances search the documentboxes for the alleged “contraband.”

So much for the charge of national security breaches.  It is total nonsense.

Jack Smith’s other fake case is that by challenging the stolen election, President Trump while still President of the United States Trump was involved in a conspiracy to “impair, object, and defeat the counting of votes.”

THINK ABOUT this charge. The charge is not that Trump defeated the vote count, which he obviously didn’t as he was replaced by Biden but that he challenged the vote count. Do you see what this means? If a candidate challenges vote irregularities, and there were many in the stolen election, he is guilty of “conspiracy to overturn the election.”

The alleged January 6 “insurrection” was the work of federal agents at the capital while Trump and his supporters were more than a mile away at the Washington Monument where Trump was speaking. Only a thoroughly corrupt Department of Justice (sic) could configure an insurrection out of police escorting a few unarmed people around the Capitol. The evidence is clear that the federal agents and the police provoked the few protesters present in an effort to create a violent scene for the presstitute media to turn into an “insurrection.”

A black Atlanta prosecutor, Fanni Willis, has turned President Trumps request to Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger to investigate the widespread evidence of electoral fraud that cost Trump the state’s electoral votes by a mere 11,000 votes. Only an ignorant quota hire could possibly confuse a crime with a request for an honest vote count.

Some people think that Raffensperger and the Governor took bribes to use the DOMINION voting machines that experts say are easily HACKABLE and easily programed to COUNT VOTES DIFFERENTLY from how they are cast. The suspicion is that the Georgia Republican authorities could not investigate without risk that their bribe would surface.

Alvin Bragg, another quota hire serving as a New York prosecutor, has charged Trump with 34 felonies for paying extortion money to porn actress Stormy Daniels. The charge is that Trumps lawyers reported the payment as a legal expense when it should have been reported as a campaign expense.  The charge is not that Trump paid the porn star but that the payment was incorrectly reported, which is merely the opinion of the prosecutor.

Ask yourself, how can 34 felony charges come out of a dispute over how a payment is reported?

The reason the Democrat hatchet men turn single charges into 34 charges and 37 charges, is to create in the public’s mind that Trump has committed a massive number of crimes. He must be guilty of something, because “where there is smoke, there is fire.” In the American system in which the media are totally biased against Trump, it is easy for Democrat prosecutors to create smoke.

These indictments of Trump consist entirely of smoke.  That such spurious charges can go forward constitutes proof that in the US law has been weaponized.  Just like the dollar.  Just like the news.

Many people dislike Trump for personal reasons or because the media has succeeded in indoctrinating them against Trump, but once innocence or guilt depends on personal emotions, the rule of law is dead.  And that is precisely what the Trump indictments indicate.

SOURCE

Posted by Elvis on 08/03/23 •
Section Revelations • Section Dying America
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home
Page 1 of 1 pages

Statistics

Total page hits 12906431
Page rendered in 0.7200 seconds
40 queries executed
Debug mode is off
Total Entries: 3598
Total Comments: 341
Most Recent Entry: 02/10/2024 09:07 am
Most Recent Comment on: 06/14/2023 06:21 pm
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 6
Total anonymous users: 0
The most visitors ever was 588 on 01/11/2023 03:46 pm


Email Us

Home

Members:
Login | Register
Resumes | Members

In memory of the layed off workers of AT&T

Today's Diversion

When a friend is in trouble, don't annoy him by asking if there is anything you can do. Think up something appropriate and do it. - Anonymous

Search


Advanced Search

Sections

Calendar

August 2023
S M T W T F S
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

Most recent entries

Must Read

RSS Feeds

BBC News

ARS Technica

External Links

Elvis Favorites

BLS and FRED Pages

Reference

Other Links

All Posts

Archives

RSS


Creative Commons License


Support Bloggers' Rights