Disaster Interesting clickbait, op-eds, fluff pieces and other smaller stories -

What should the prefix to this thread be?

  • World

    Votes: 91 17.1%
  • Science

    Votes: 19 3.6%
  • Culture

    Votes: 114 21.4%
  • Disaster

    Votes: 309 58.0%

  • Total voters
    533

BoingoTango

Sabat on a gayops
kiwifarms.net
Actually, the first nation to recognize the independence of the United States was the Kingdom of France.
You seem really obsessed with the whole monarchy business. I mean it's a pretty good government to go with in Civ 3 and 4, but other than that it's garbage. A bunch of incest babies that acted as figureheads for the people actually in charge, why should we care, sir?
 

Feline Supremacist

I am a Dog-Exclusionary Radical Felinist
kiwifarms.net
Remember that the war was caused when the fake news media lied that Spain was responsible for the destruction of the USS Maine. While the Spanish government ceded Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines to the US in the Treaty of Paris, the treaty wasn’t signed by the rightful Carlist heir to the Spanish throne. The US supporting revolution in Cuba led to further revolutionary ideology that led to Cuba becoming a communist shithole in 1958 which it still is today.
You're just mad a nigger wiped the floor with Spanish ass and Teddy Roosevelt mopped it up it. Stay mad chalupa.
 

Jacob Harrison

Ultimate Anglo American
kiwifarms.net
You seem really obsessed with the whole monarchy business. I mean it's a pretty good government to go with in Civ 3 and 4, but other than that it's garbage. A bunch of incest babies that acted as figureheads for the people actually in charge, why should we care, sir?
But monarchs used to have actual power. You should care if you believe in the law. The monarchs of nations such as France were the legitimate authority until they were illegally overthrown. I gave this analogy before and I will give it again.
You go on a vacation and when you come back home, you see that other people are living in your house.

“Get off my property!” you shout.

And then one of them says “Hey, you cannot oppose us for taking your property. After all, you think it is fine that the monarchs of Britain stole England from it’s true monarchs. You clearly don’t think that property rights matter.”

“You are breaking the law. If you don’t get off I will call the police.”

“We’ve got guns. We ain’t scared of no cops. And the law does not matter because legitimate authority does not matter. After all, the monarchs of Britain usurped the legitimate authority of England’s rightful monarchs and your fine with that. Now we are the authority on this property and we will make you our slave.”
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: Feline Supremacist

BoingoTango

Sabat on a gayops
kiwifarms.net
You go on a vacation and when you come back home, you see that other people are living in your house.

“Get off my property!” you shout.

And then one of them says “Hey, you cannot oppose us for taking your property. After all, you think it is fine that the monarchs of Britain stole England from it’s true monarchs. You clearly don’t think that property rights matter.”

“You are breaking the law. If you don’t get off I will call the police.”

“We’ve got guns. We ain’t scared of no cops. And the law does not matter because legitimate authority does not matter. After all, the monarchs of Britain usurped the legitimate authority of England’s rightful monarchs and your fine with that. Now we are the authority on this property and we will make you our slave.”

So what you're saying is, we REALLY should only be looking to Chief Auroch-Slayer of Stonehenge's line's laws as the true law? I mean he is the ONLY legitimate authority in England after all. Or does this "legitimate authority" only go back as far as it was written down? Also, the only legitimate authority is power. In your analogy the victim is faced with two options, give up and relinquish authority of his dwelling to the invaders or fight back and possibly die, if he wins he has 'legitimate authority', if he dies the invaders have 'legitimate authority'. If you cannot defend your authority, you don't really have authority.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Mister Qwerty

Jacob Harrison

Ultimate Anglo American
kiwifarms.net
So what you're saying is, we REALLY should only be looking to Chief Auroch-Slayer of Stonehenge's line's laws as the true law? I mean he is the ONLY legitimate authority in England after all. Or does this "legitimate authority" only go back as far as it was written down? Also, the only legitimate authority is power. In your analogy the victim is faced with two options, give up and relinquish authority of his dwelling to the invaders or fight back and possibly die, if he wins he has 'legitimate authority', if he dies the invaders have 'legitimate authority'. If you cannot defend your authority, you don't really have authority.
The Romans were the first legitimate authority of Britain as they were the first to bring civilization. After the Romans lost Europe, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne King of the Franks Emperor of the Romans because he considered the throne of the Byzantine Empire to be vacant since the wicked Empress Irene was an illegitimate ruler who usurped power from her son.

Charlemagne and his successors recognized other European kingdoms including England. The Kingdom of France and the Holy Roman Empire were the legal successors to Charlemagne’s Empire.
 

BoingoTango

Sabat on a gayops
kiwifarms.net
The Romans were the first legitimate authority of Britain as they were the first to bring civilization. After the Romans lost Europe, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne King of the Franks Emperor of the Romans because he considered the throne of the Byzantine Empire to be vacant since the wicked Empress Irene was an illegitimate ruler who usurped power from her son.

Charlemagne and his successors recognized other European kingdoms including England. The Kingdom of France and the Holy Roman Empire were the legal successors to Charlemagne’s Empire.
You fail to understand that the Romans "authority" was only brought about by illegal conquest, so why should we care about them or any of their descendants?
 

Jacob Harrison

Ultimate Anglo American
kiwifarms.net
You fail to understand that the Romans "authority" was only brought about by illegal conquest, so why should we care about them or any of their descendants?
As I said, the conquest was not illegal because the pre-Roman Britons were primitive tribes and the Romans brought them civilization.
 

Jacob Harrison

Ultimate Anglo American
kiwifarms.net
You're just mad a nigger wiped the floor with Spanish ass and Teddy Roosevelt mopped it up it. Stay mad chalupa.
Speaking of blacks(I won’t say the n word because I am not racist and only blacks are allowed to use that word), did you know that unfortunately, slavery is still legal in the United States?

Since the US illegally annexed Texas(which as I said is rightful territory of Spain) in 1845 and granted them statehood, it means that Texans being allowed to vote and have representation in Congress is illegal. This means that the entire federal government of the US since 1845 has been illegitimate. Every federal law and constitutional amendment made after 1845 is therefore invalid.

So once the US gives Spain back its rightful territories, we need to ratify the 13th amendment all over again.
 

Feline Supremacist

I am a Dog-Exclusionary Radical Felinist
kiwifarms.net
Speaking of blacks(I won’t say the n word because I am not racist and only blacks are allowed to use that word), did you know that unfortunately, slavery is still legal in the United States?

Since the US illegally annexed Texas(which as I said is rightful territory of Spain) in 1845 and granted them statehood, it means that Texans being allowed to vote and have representation in Congress is illegal. This means that the entire federal government of the US since 1845 has been illegitimate. Every federal law and constitutional amendment made after 1845 is therefore invalid.

So once the US gives Spain back its rightful territories, we need to ratify the 13th amendment all over again.
Regardless, a bunch of niggers, mulattos, filthy Galicians and AMERICANS kicked Spain's ass, took her shit and we're not giving it back. And don't mess with Texas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SinEater

CWCissey

Charming Man
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Guess the Native Americans were savages that deserved to be conquered?

Does this apply to the Mayans, Aztecs and Incas? Would that mean Texas should belong to the Aztecs?

Spray it on Tumblr @Jacob Harrison, that would at least be mildly amusing.
 

Jacob Harrison

Ultimate Anglo American
kiwifarms.net
Guess the Native Americans were savages that deserved to be conquered?

Does this apply to the Mayans, Aztecs and Incas? Would that mean Texas should belong to the Aztecs?

Spray it on Tumblr @Jacob Harrison, that would at least be mildly amusing.
The conquest of the Mayans, Aztecs, and Incas was just because they practiced human sacrifice. The other natives conquered by the Spanish were primitive. As for the North American natives, the original goal when expanding out west was to bring civilization to the natives. I do agree that Andrew Jackson’s policy of removing natives from their homes was bad.
 

AlexJonesGotMePregnant

do you are have stupid
kiwifarms.net
The conquest of the Mayans, Aztecs, and Incas was just because they practiced human sacrifice. The other natives conquered by the Spanish were primitive. As for the North American natives, the original goal when expanding out west was to bring civilization to the natives. I do agree that Andrew Jackson’s policy of removing natives from their homes was bad.
all of your takes are dumb, but this is exceptionally dumb. I'm sure the conquest of the americas had nothing to do with the bountiful natural resources and was only because the nice euro catholics wanted to prevent ignorant brown people from killing each other. Your understanding of history is some really strange revisionism that seems to fundamentally misunderstand human motivation as to why people kill each other.

putting the incans in there is especially stupid. by time the euros got there, the incan empire had been around for potentially 2k+ years; the incan people had lived so long under their god-king that even in decline due to the expansion of the aztecs from the north they still followed the rule of the king without question. There is little evidence that by time the spaniards arrived in peru that the incans were practicing human sacrifice in any wide-spread manner; there is some evidence to suggest that when things heated up between the euro invaders and the incans that they returned to it a bit more specifically to terrify the invaders and they try to curry the favor of the gods. this attempt did not last very long. the murder of catholic priests was a not even religious, it was purely a political move by someone trying to take over the native populace.

usually i ignore all your posts because they're dumb, and i'll go back to doing that, but stop shitting up every thread you touch with obviously false conspiratard shit.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Jewelsmakerguy

Bessie

can't shake the other head
kiwifarms.net
Article from Wired.

Allie Funk of Wired said:
I Opted Out of Facial Recognition at the Airport—It Wasn't Easy
Allie Funk
Security 07.02.19 09:00 AM

---------------
The announcement came as we began to board. Last month, I was at Detroit’s Metro Airport for a connecting flight to Southeast Asia. I listened as a Delta Air Lines staff member informed passengers that the boarding process would use facial recognition instead of passport scanners.

As a privacy-conscious person, I was uncomfortable boarding this way. I also knew I could opt out. Presumably, most of my fellow fliers did not: I didn't hear a single announcement alerting passengers how to avoid the face scanners.

To figure out how to do so, I had to leave the boarding line, speak with a Delta representative at their information desk, get back in line, then request a passport scan when it was my turn to board. Federal agencies and airlines claim that facial recognition is an opt-out system, but my recent experience suggests they are incentivizing travelers to have their faces scanned—and disincentivizing them to sidestep the tech—by not clearly communicating alternative options. Last year, a Delta customer service representative reported that only 2 percent of customers opt out of facial-recognition. It's easy to see why.

As I watched traveler after traveler stand in front of a facial scanner before boarding our flight, I had an eerie vision of a new privacy-invasive status quo. With our faces becoming yet another form of data to be collected, stored, and used, it seems we’re sleepwalking toward a hyper-surveilled environment, mollified by assurances that the process is undertaken in the name of security and convenience. I began to wonder: Will we only wake up once we no longer have the choice to opt out?

Until we have evidence that facial recognition is accurate and reliable—as opposed to simply convenient—travelers should avoid the technology where they can.

The facial recognition plan in US airports is built around the Customs and Border Protection Biometric Exit Program, which utilizes face-scanning technology to verify a traveler’s identity. CBP partners with airlines—including Delta, JetBlue, American Airlines, and others—to photograph each traveler while boarding. That image gets compared to one stored in a cloud-based photo-matching service populated with photos from visas, passports, or related immigration applications. The Biometric Exit Program is used in at least 17 airports, and a recently-released Department of Homeland Security report states that CBP anticipates having the ability to scan the faces of 97 percent of commercial air passengers departing the United States by 2023.

This rapid deployment of facial recognition in airports follows a 2017 executive order in which President Trump expedited former President Obama’s efforts to use biometric technology. The Transportation Security Administration has since unveiled its own plan to improve partnership with CBP and to introduce the technology throughout the airport. The opportunity for this kind of biometric collection infrastructure to feed into a broader system of mass surveillance is staggering, as is its ability to erode privacy.

Proponents of these programs often argue that facial recognition in airports promotes security while providing convenience. But abandoning privacy should not be a prerequisite for achieving security. And in the case of technology like facial recognition, the “solution” can quickly become a deep and troubling problem of its own.

For starters, facial recognition technology appears incapable of treating all passengers equally at this stage. Research shows that it is particularly unreliable for gender and racial minorities: one study, for example, found a 99 percent accuracy rate for white men, while the error rate for women who have darker skin reached up to 35 percent. This suggests that, for women and people of color, facial recognition could actually cause an increase in the likelihood to be unfairly targeted for additional screening measures.

Americans should be concerned about whether images of their faces collected by this program will be used by companies and shared across different government agencies. Other data collected for immigration purposes—like social media details—can be shared with federal, state, and local agencies. If one government agency has a database with facial scans, it would be simple to share the data with others. This technology is already seeping into everyday life, and the increased regularity with which Americans encounter facial recognition as a matter of course while traveling will reinforce this familiarity; in this context, it is easy to imagine content from a government-operated facial recognition database being utilized in other settings aside from airports—say, for example, monitoring peaceful protests.

There are also serious concerns about CBP’s storage of this data. A database with millions of facial scans is extremely sensitive, and breaches seem inevitable. Indeed, CBP officials recently revealed that thousands of photos of people’s faces and license plates were compromised after a cyberattack on a federal subcontractor. Once this sort of data is made insecure, there is no hope of getting it back. One cannot simply alter their face like they can their phone number or email address.

Importantly, there have been some efforts to address facial recognition in airports. The government’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board recently announced an aviation-security project to assess privacy and civil liberties implications with biometric technologies. Members of Congress have also shared similar concerns.

Nevertheless, the Biometric Exit Program needs to be stopped until it prioritizes travelers’ privacy and resolves its technical and legal shortcomings. At the state and local level, public opposition has driven cities and states to consider—and, in some cases, enact—restrictions on the use of facial recognition technology. The same healthy skepticism should be directed toward the technology’s deployment at our airports.

Congress needs to supplement pressure from travelers with strong data protection laws that provide greater transparency and oversight. This should include strict limits on how long companies and government agencies can retain such intimate data. Private companies should not be allowed to utilize data collected for business purposes, and federal agencies should not be able to freely share this data with other parts of government. Policymakers should also ensure that biometric programs undergo thorough and transparent civil rights assessments prior to implementation.

Until measures like these are met, travelers should be critical when submitting to facial recognition technology in airports. Ask yourself: Is saving a few minutes worth handing over your most sensitive biometric information?

WIRED OPINION
ABOUT

Allie Funk is a research analyst for Freedom on the Net, Freedom House's annual country-by-country assessment of internet freedom. She focuses on developments in the US and Asia.
In the spirit of the day, I present this article as a birthday card. What better time to tell America that it's fat losing its independence and human dignity than on Independence Day.

In all seriousness, I hope you guys have a good 4th, and hang onto your liberties - wherever you reside.
 

Sīn the Moon Daddy

🌙 Time and Tide
kiwifarms.net
You seem really obsessed with the whole monarchy business. I mean it's a pretty good government to go with in Civ 3 and 4, but other than that it's garbage. A bunch of incest babies that acted as figureheads for the people actually in charge, why should we care, sir?
As opposed to the current system where we elect incest babies to be the figureheads for those actually in charge
 
  • Like
Reactions: DidYouJustSayThat
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino