AnarchoDoom

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

True, and it appears to be sucking about as much energy out of the grid than heating in regions with long, cold winters.

The problem is the shitty urban infrastructure we got, that only helps increasing the greenhouse effect. Too much highways, parking lots and large flat roofs all over the place. Not enough green areas.

7

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

Picard and Discovery are awful, still. :-) Alex Kurtzman is a self-entitled jackass who should go to hell, just for screwing up the Vulcans backstory, and giving Young Spock an ugly beard.

Star Trek reboots were mediocre for the most part... Shaky cams and light flares don't make it for a good story, and I still contend that Young Spock was one of the worst miscasts in history of cinema. He looks like an angry squirrel. Totally not Spock.

Didn't watch Enterprise as it looked unappealing. There was some good in Voyager and DS9, though.

2

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

Tails is based on Systemd, which is a security flaw in itself... Systemd also controls MAC address allocation. There's a Systemd-related MAC spoofer you can install, tho I dunno how reliable that is.

What is the problem with Whonix or why no one's talking about it? I thought it provided better security than Tails..

2

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

But that's just a spin-off, focused on some elderly guy, lol. The actor could die at any point irl... You don't start a multi-season series out of this. It's totally like a way for the TNG actors to get themselves some retirement jobs.

The original Star Trek series (ring any bell?) were great from the start. It's true tho that TNG was crap for at least the 1 or 2 first seasons.

Tho not on any Alex Kurzman annoying pretentious level of crap. Picard made him look like he didn't watch any of the old series... Same can be said of the Star Trek film reboots.

Anyways Star Trek is pretty much just a brand by now... same as Star Wars. Franchises that got sucked out of their overarching concepts.

2

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

Most rooting methods these days involve having to unlock the bootloader. Some devices a few years back could be rooted through some exploit or by (lol) asking the company for it.

And yes, when it is unlocked, it is unlocked. I know for having done it many times on different phones. If "ifconfig __ down" cannot turn down the modem, anyone would be able to see that. I did it on the rooted devices I had, and it was able to shut down any modem as far as I know. This is stuff you just cannot do on a non-rooted phone, as just with other Linux distros you need root privileges to do this.

So if what you say is true, it'd be either

1- a hidden modem that ifconfig can't detect, which is some major news.

2- the locked bootloader would be the only trick in the way to full device control, keeping users from switch on/off the modem, by also preventing from rooting, in the first place.

Logically, given how the cell phone companies have been actively locking down bootloaders on phones the past few years (down to being written in chips as read-only, so your only hope is to change the memory chip), it's likely that it's the second option.

3

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

A little after Nexuiz went to hell I moved to Urban Terror, and am surprised to still be playing it after like 10 years, even if the game has had very little development progress. The game's been running for like 20 years by now, lol.

Not the most brilliant team game, but fun at times.

4

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

I would take it and turn it into a public-domain land trust, duh.

But no, your hypothetical situation is hardly likely in settler America. Tho just in case it happens, use your brain and consider the above.

3

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

Beyond the disease factor, there was also the issue that natives didn't have the same notion of land property, if any at all. This "ideological gap" made it possible for settlers to continuously invade, and push back native tribes either by force or by ruse. Native people likely didn't see the settlers increasing presence as colonial invasion, as the notion of land property was alien to them. They just couldn't get what that meant when some Euro monarch decided to take an whole region, or the Founding Fathers to decide to go beyond the Mississippi Valley (for taking over the Wild West).

Settlers back then -just like they are still today- were seeing occupation/use of land as a matter of appropriating it. Hence, land property is by design intertwined with colonialism.

4

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

It's true that whatever's corporate-run telecoms is a control grid. Tho if someone only uses their rooted phone on LineageOS only for wifi (and changing your MAC address often), it's actually even less problematic than most laptops, as there's no known backdoors like Intel IME on phones (but I feel naive saying this, so who knows?).

5

AnarchoDoom wrote

Reply to comment by Tequila_Wolf in Pure Black by Tequila_Wolf

I think the Deleuzian-Guattari view of the "dividual" made sense in the way that they saw people as territorialized through different disconnected divisions, therefore being turned schizophrenic by default. Tho it's causing a problem when applied through group dynamics, as since the individual no longer exists, you can only be a singularity within a bigger whole, and not a standalone entity.

I thought it was understood by Deleuzians that gender is one of these territorializations, hence the importance for a queer critic of ID politics (not in support of it).

3

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

"open source" ain't a measure to make software less problematic. Signal is centralized/un-federated (the founder also has a record of talking against federation) and its devs are cultish. It always comes down to a political issue of development process and how it's managed.

Telegram is more secure than SMS in the way that the servers are based outside of Five Eyes countries That's its only better security. Taking aside the encryption issue, SMS are also obviously managed through domestic data centers.

0

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by Tequila_Wolf in Pure Black by Tequila_Wolf

You believe what suits you... but a "dividual" refers to an entity which can be divided (or is divisible) as well. It is a concept often used by post-modern communists, who see people only as part of bigger whole or bodies. So it is ideologically-charged.

I'd rather concur that "individual" is still the proper term for referring to a unique being, yet I get it is not a notion purified of its liberal ideological background. Just the more semantically consensual.

4