Categories
Technology Thoughts

When China likes our choice for President you know it was the wrong choice

Official state media from China praises Trump’s exit from the scene. They are all too happy that there will be no one standing in their way towards world dominance.

China has been chipping away at the United States for decades. The beginning was during the Clinton Administration, continued through the Bush Administration, and took off like a rocket during the Obama Administration. From the 1990’s to today China has used it’s manufacturing relationship with the United States to push its influence into Africa, South America, and Western European multi-governmental organizations. They’ve also cornered the market on precious metals that are the foundation of all modern computer technology.

China had loads of trouble launching rockets until the Clinton Administration allowed certain key technologies to be sold to the communist nation. President Bush started the process but it was Clinton that pushed it over the goal line.

Blast forward to the 2000’s where high technology manufacturing in China became almost exclusive for American companies. Chinese factories through a slow process of learning and stealing the best of American ideas in computer manufacturing catapulted them in just a decade to a powerhouse of high tech. Through every iPhone and computer we purchased we funded the Chinese Communist Party and every genocide they perpetrated upon their people.

We funded their one child per family policy that killed an unknown number of female babies. We are right now funding their abuse of the Uighurs as the Chinese sterilize their women and send their people into re-education camps for having wrong thoughts.

What President Biden does over the next 6 months to a year will be crucial to the United States remaining dominant in the world. Will he continue President Trump’s hard line toward China or will he soften our approach and allow them to cement their dominance into this next decade?

Categories
Thoughts

Peaceful transfer of power under the barrel of a gun

We Americans like to boast about our peaceful transfer of power whenever a new President is inaugurated. But, if we have tens of thousands of military troops occupying Washington D.C. and thousands more surrounding each state capitol did we truly have a peaceful transfer of power?

Categories
Thoughts

Fake news from January 2017

I remember all this happening. But I thought I didn’t remember correctly. Everyone told me that Trump’s 2016 win was accepted by all. This must have been some seriously good propaganda.

Categories
Thoughts

Question: Have we ever had an occupying force in D.C. for Inauguration Day?

The need for over 20,000 troops to occupy Washington D.C. and thousands more to secure 50 state capitols, for a peaceful transition of power on Inauguration Day, should tell you something is wrong with our election process.

Categories
Thoughts

Videos of the “insurrection” and “coup attempt” you won’t see on the news

Here’s a bunch of videos from inside and around the capitol during the so-called “coup attempt” and “insurrection”. This was no riot. Watch them now before YouTube takes them down.

Did some violence happen? Yes. 2 people die during the protest. One of the protesters was shot and the other a police officer. Other deaths were on the periphery and not directly related to the people entering the building.

If kept in context this was probably the most peaceful protest in history where a few hundred people entered and thousands of people occupied the outside of a building. It’s surprising that it didn’t get more out of control than it did. The worst stuff that happened was caused by a few. If you look at these videos these were disgruntled citizens just wanting to make their voices heard.

You can find more videos here. Feel free to peruse those before they’re all removed from the Internet. Once that’s done the real history will be erased.

Categories
Technology

Project Veritas finally nets a fish

KSAT.com

Project Veritas finally took someone down… maybe. She has to be convicted first. Imagine. If she is found guilty she is just one person in Texas. How many more people are like her all over the United States?

This is why our election laws, systems, procedures, and regulations need to be audited, streamlined, and repaired. Without election integrity we don’t have legitimate government.

Rodriguez faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted, according to the news release.

She was captured on an undercover camera as part of a video released by Project Veritas last fall.

In it, Rodriguez appears to show an older woman how to change her vote on a mail-in ballot.

In the same video, Rodriguez described various types of small gifts she gets for voters she comes into contact with.

KSAT.com
Categories
Thoughts

Biden Administration Theme

Jeff Smith

For a better life beyond your freedom, Build Back Better…. for someone else.

Categories
Thoughts

Rise in skin cancer may only be an epidemic of diagnosis

My goodness. What the heck is happening in the world? All this nonsense about limiting exposure to the sun has not only lead to an increase in unnecessary cancer diagnosis but also has possibly caused vitamin D deficiencies making us more vulnerable to viruses like SARS-CoV-2.

This study highlights an inconvenient truth: absent metastasis, no definitive diagnostic criteria for the pathological diagnosis of melanoma exist. Because the diagnosis is subjective, pathologists disagree about whether melanoma is present, particularly when faced with lesions in the diagnostic gray zone.16,17 In addition, they are increasingly evaluating small, ambiguous lesions; nearly 90% of melanomas are now thin (<1.0 mm in thickness) (Fig. S2 in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM). A combination of subjective criteria, increased frequency of ambiguous lesions, and asymmetric incentives (penalties for underdiagnosing but not for overdiagnosing) may explain the lower pathological threshold to diagnose melanoma.

New England Journal of Medicine
Image by PDPics from Pixabay
Categories
Thoughts

Every business should have its own “terms of service”

Why is it legal to discriminate according to political ideology? Does this mean that any private business can now refuse service to anyone because of their political beliefs? 

Every business should post a “terms of service” that says you automatically agree once you step beyond a certain point. Then if a user of your service does anything, says anything, or even has a history of doing or saying anything that violates the TOS you can refuse service. Under current popular opinion that should be legal.

I bring this up obviously because of the blackballing of the social media app Parler. I’d provide a link but as of this writing they are still down. There crime is that they would not “properly” police their site for content that is supposedly in violation of Amazon’s terms of service.

Take a good look at Amazon’s AWS terms of service. It’s gigantic! The section regarding content and “prohibited content” is thankfully up at the top in section 1.4. But prohibited content is not defined here. Instead you have to look up Amazon’s acceptable use policy. Their acceptable use policy is so vague that I can easily prove that Amazon is violating it’s own policy. Here is the content policy they are violating.

Offensive Content. Content that is defamatory, obscene, abusive, invasive of privacy, or otherwise objectionable, including content that constitutes child pornography, relates to bestiality, or depicts non-consensual sex acts.

Amazon.com

I’m pretty sure almost any book covering the subject of rape has to depict “non-consensual sex acts.” Does it make common sense that these books should be banned from Amazon.com or that Amazon should take down their site? No. But you can see how easy it is to make a terms of service violation claim.

Parler was attempting to act as a platform. Just like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and the like. They chose to not editorialize by taking down or banning some controversial speech. If anyone on their site participated in illegal speech then they should have been taken down and prosecuted.

I dare to say that most people who post controversial opinions on social media apps are not the people you need to worry about. The true terrorists are using more private means of communication. Sure, you may get the one off out in public but by and large I believe the real terroristic threats occur on more obscure sites, through private e-mail, or encrypted chat.

Software terms of service have been around forever. When we used to buy software the terms of service were almost ignored. I don’t think they held much weight even in court. But, with the rise of the Internet and software as a service suddenly we don’t own anything and are subject to the whims of service agreement legalese. This is why every business should adopt the service business model. It makes it extremely easy then to oust people with which you disagree.

Don’t sell donuts. Sell donuts as a service. People can purchase a sample or subscribe to your donut of the day or donut of the month. When they walk through that door have your terms of service posted in front or right there on the floor. Once there in you now have total control over what they can and cannot say in your establishment. A violation gets them removed.

Image by Markus Winkler from Pixabay
Categories
Technology Thoughts

Google, Apple, and Amazon violated Parler’s human rights

It’s not that long ago that we were being told the access to the Internet is a human right. Apparently that concept goes right out the window if you have the wrong thoughts. Mind you, it has been mostly those on the left that introduced the concept of Internet access as a human right. Yet when push came to shove they were the first to cast it aside as soon as that right was being exercised by those with which they disagree.

As far as I’m aware a human right is a right you’re born with. It’s a right you have because you exist. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

archive.gov

I don’t agree that Internet access is a human right. You’re not born connected to the Internet… yet. Wait until they jack us all in to indoctrinate us from birth. That’s a conspiracy theory for another day! But, let’s list some organizations that have pushed this narrative.

OpenGlobalRights.org

My research shows that internet access should be a human right provided by the government as without it, other human rights—including the right to work and the right to basic education—cannot be adequately realized.

openglobalrights.org

United Nations

Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

un.org

The right to Internet access, also known as the right to broadband or freedom to connect, is the view that all people must be able to access the Internet in order to exercise and enjoy their rights to freedom of expression and opinion and other fundamental human rights, that states have a responsibility to ensure that Internet access is broadly available, and that states may not unreasonably restrict an individual’s access to the Internet.

wikipedia.org

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Advocates should also galvanize the private sector to pressure the governments they work with to respect the right to the Internet by threatening to pull their investments. Just as activists named and shamed Nike and the Gap into ending child labor in their Vietnamese sweatshops, so they should similarly call out countries that harass, spy on, or disrupt or deny Internet access to its citizens.

carnegieendowment.org

Journal of Applied Philosophy

I argue instead that Internet access is itself a moral human right that requires that everyone has unmonitored and uncensored access to this global medium, which should be publicly provided free of charge for those unable to afford it. Rather than being a mere luxury, Internet access should be considered a universal entitlement because it is necessary for people to be able to lead minimally decent lives. Accepting this claim transforms our conception of the Internet from a technology to that of a basic right.

Journal of Applied Philosophy

Brookings Institution

In a world where internet shutdowns are increasing year to year, it is important that the right steps are taken to improve the relationship between governments and citizens and to uphold all human rights. The UN could advance the cause of universal internet access by using the SDGs as a stepping stone; those whose livelihoods depend on internet access or who fear that their access will be terminated will have the most to gain. The 193 signatory countries have already committed to improving internet quality, sustainability, and accessibility—a first step to internet access truly being treated as a human right.

brookings.edu

Amnesty International

The rights enshrined in the UDHR are to be enjoyed by all people, in all places, and at all times. Technological progress will always change how people enjoy their fundamental rights, and require governments and people to reaffirm the inseparability rights, and the methods of enjoyment of those rights.

amnestyusa.org

So… what is it? Is access to the Internet a human right or not? Apparently it is but only if you think correct thoughts. What the UN and other international groups need to do is issue certifications to people and groups so we know who is entitled to human rights. The rest of us will then know who is and who is not human.