5G mast set aflame in leafy Liverpool district, half an hour's walk from Penny Lane Another 5G mast has gone up in flames in Liverpool in the UK, in this case mere days after it was erected. Firefighters were called to the mast after nearby residents reported hearing a large bang, followed by smoke and flames. According to police, a suspect was seen fleeing the area on an electric bike, wearing black clothes …
Ring each mast about 1/3rd to halfway up with multiple cameras, overlapping FOVs, so that you can't approach the structure without appearing on at least one of them. Ring the bottom of each site with still more of them pointing upwards so that you can't escape getting seen no matter how hard you try to look away.
Sure you can wear a mask or another face cover, but then all the other cameras in the area can backtrack your sorry arse until one reveals your face for the plods to nab.
Last but not least, hire squirrels to pull a Foamy the Angry Squirrel supersonic nut attack to the skull of any twit that tries attacking the mast. Pull back your arm to lob a molotov & a squirrel puts an acorn sniper shot through your arse.
Posting anon because I don't want to endanger my supply of dried frog pills. =-)P
Each mast could get it's own AI driven drone which watches everyone who approaches, and if it decides you are attempted to deface, damage or destroy the mast, it will chase you and do to you exactly what you did to the mast. Eye for an eye, or more likely, you'll find a large phallus spray painted across your face
All those questions that I asked then I was a child. Questions like:
"How could anyone have voted for a weird looking racist psychopath with delusions of grandeur and a tendency to shout a lot and throw tantrums?"
"Why would anyone follow a lightweight nobody copycat of said fascist anywhere else?"
"Why would anyone try to harm the slightly dotty old lady who lived in the overgrown cottage at the end of the village, much less set her on fire?"
"How could anyone thing that other genders / other races / other sexualities etc are anything less than equal?"*
"Why would anyone worship a mythic being with a beard?" **
It's all clear now. The answer is stupid people. It always was stupid people. Perhaps my five year old self should have made it abundantly clear to the powers that were / be that I do not need a practical demonstration. Particularly not when I'm well past middle age, and I'm no longer interested in the questions that I asked as a bairn.
*My parents were very progressive
**God. We all know that Father Christmas exists, of course.
An alternative answer is fear. Fear doesn't have to start out as of something specific. It can start out unfocused and find something to attach itself to. What that something is depends on current cultural obsessions.
Fear can make us stupid in respect of the thing it attaches to while we quite possibly remain entirely rational in all other respects. Consequently, we are all probably stupid in some things without any of us being entirely stupid.
... and fear of something new stems from ignorance. Only The Stupid would be frightened of 5G (having done their 'research' of course) because they don't have the intelligence OR the knowledge to know that 5G weaponised bats are not made by Chinese labs. They're made by our reptilian overlords of course, everyone knows that.
"How could anyone think that other genders / other races / other sexualities etc are anything less than equal?"*
How many genders are there? You make it seem like there are more than two.
And what the hell does 'other sexualities' mean. Does this include Peadophiles and Zooophiles?
That's a very extreme leftist activist view of the world. So I suppose it fits in with the 5g Covid theory conspiracies.
There have been three genders in India for centuries, since you ask. There are also multiple chromosonal combinations such as XXY and XYY as well as the more common XX and XY.
As for 'other sexualities' I think it's clear that there is more than one, and that immediately means that from the perspective of any given individual there are 'others'.
Treating a hermaphrodite that's attracted to people with a different approach to sexual genitalia than themselves in the same way that you would treat anybody else doesn't feel particularly extremist or activist to me, and since 'leftist' is a very subjective term I really don't understand your point at all.
Feel free to correct me where I am wrong ;
Beings born with XXY, XXY or XYY are recognized scientifically as being male.
Only women have XX chromosomes.
Outside of these cases, I do know about any other classifications.
The Oxford dictionary defines Gender as that pertaining to be either Male or Female.
If there were more than two genders then we as a species would probably result in multiple variants. From a scientific or evolutionary point of this is does not appear to be the case.
The Hijras in India are for the majority hermaphrodites, which by the above standard reasoning would imply that they are male, albeit with genetic, not gender, differences.
Personally I treat all people initially the same way, if someone can gain my respect that I will show my respect. I will also try to gain theirs in the same way. But respect needs to be earned and it can also be lost. It is a constant struggle to avoid losing it. It is most certainely not, and should not, be expected to be given by default.
Shoving idealogies in someone's though face is not a very positive way to go about achieving respect, in most cases that would be classified as fascism.
While I freely admit that there has been a resurgence of predominantly attention-seeking identity politics making headlines for the past few years, you're just wilfully feigning ignorance of the distinction between sex and gender here.
Sex remains what it always has been; a vaguely convenient shorthand for categorising some biological differences within species that doesn't hold up super-well under scrutiny but is usually good enough for the purposes it's used for.
Shoving idealogies in someone's though face is not a very positive way to go about achieving respect
Well indeed, which is why I wouldn't dream of telling someone with a functioning uterus that they must be male. Which defining all intersex peoples as 'male' would require.
While medically it's helpful to categorise people in order to more effectively treat them, socially it's all entirely irrelevant. I'm not going to fuck you whether you call yourself a man, a woman or a (Twitch Safety Council) deer, so you dress as you choose, label yourself as you choose and I'll treat you just the same as I do everybody else.
On that I think we do agree.
Please, don't keep spelling it "idealogies". The word is "ideologies". I'm not engaging with the rest of your content though, which strikes me as the ramblings of someone with a narrow viewpoint pretending to be open-minded. And respect is something you should give to everyone, until they demonstrate they aren't worthy of it. This kind of "prove to me you are worthy of my respect" thing is pretty arrogant, don't you think?
"...And respect is something you should give to everyone, until they demonstrate they aren't worthy of it..."
We must have different ideas of what "respect" means.
As far as I'm concerned, the person I respect is someone I look up to, someone who I'd perhaps try to emulate (but never be "the same as"). All other people I'll eat with, drink with, etc. I'll tolerate them. I'll accept them. I'll talk/argue with them and listen to any views they put forward. If a person is my manager or a law/security/safety officer, I'll probably obey instructions they might give - they can expect a demand for a justification of such instructions if I can't immediately see the need for them.
But automatically give respect to?
No - you've got to prove to me you're worthy of my respect first.
Sorry, I'm with the OP on this.
Quote: "The Oxford dictionary defines Gender as that pertaining to be either Male or Female."
No it doesn't, I suggest you go read the OED. The only mention of males and females together: Males or females viewed as a group it states these = SEX, not gender.
The OED does mention 'gender' was used incorrectly (and interchangeably for the word 'sex'), from mid last century, but this was in cases when 'sex' should have been used instead. This was due to 'sex' becoming more associated with the act of sex, rather than the sexes.
I'm in my 50s and I remember 'gender' being used in classes and in text books when referencing biological sexes, i.e. male and female, but this was an aberration at the time, and an incorrect use of the word 'gender'. (Something I only found out about recently).
I was one of those people who objected to the use of 'gender' being used to describe anything other than male or female, because that's what I was taught at school.
But I was wrong! One day I decided to read up on the subject, and realised that for a few years, perhaps decades, at least in the UK, gender was being used incorrectly in classes and in text books.
You need to do a find and replace in your head, if anything relates to biological male and female, then the word 'sex' should replace 'gender'. Gender is not the same as biological sex.
Feel free to correct me where I am wrong ;
Beings born with XXY, XXY or XYY are recognized scientifically as being male.
Of course, now I can't find the original article through Google. But here's a couple articles that refer to XXY females.
http://www.reproductivemedicine.com/toc/auto_abstract.php?id=21954
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1483688/
strange enough that I was originally researching this in order to create a made-up condition based on it for a fanfiction story I was working on. I had thought the condition was Non-Klinefelter XXY, but Google is proving useless on that. As I recall, it referred to cases where female XXY patients had even successfully carried a pregnancy to term.
Treating a hermaphrodite that's attracted to people with a different approach to sexual genitalia than themselves in the same way that you would treat anybody else doesn't feel particularly extremist or activist to me, and since 'leftist' is a very subjective term I really don't understand your point at all.
Don't feel bad, Cedric. He doesn't (understand) either.
"While I freely admit that there has been a resurgence of predominantly attention-seeking identity politics making headlines for the past few years, you're just wilfully feigning ignorance of the distinction between sex and gender here"
Please provide your very definition of the two and why they differ. As far as I was taught, and as far as the dictionary is concerned they are synonyms.
Gender or Sex can easily be defined as follows: A definition that allows us to distinguish between the two elements of pour species which are required for procreation.
Do you honestly believe that you can change biology just by using thought ?
If someone decides that they are the opposite gender, they are free to think in that manner but that does not make them the opposite gender.
A man/woman is not man/woman because of the way that they think, it's simply because their chromosomes are constructed as such. It's not a variable, it's a constant. How they then choose to live is another matter.
"Sex remains what it always has been; a vaguely convenient shorthand for categorising some biological differences within species that doesn't hold up super-well under scrutiny but is usually good enough for the purposes it's used for."
Oh you mean the reproductive sexual organs... That which has allowed the human species to exist for around the last 250 000 years or so. You firmly consider that that does not hold up well under scrutiny ?
What in your terms do you consider as being good for the purposes then ?
When I say it doesn't hold up well to scrutiny, I mean in the same way that the concept of race pretty much falls apart as soon as you start looking at trying to define it with any degree of determinism. We use two easy categories which are mighty handy for various purposes, but it's a distinction that we've made because the chromosomal distinctions are far greater (and it can't always come down to genitals, because nature has pretty much done everything you can think of with everything you can think of!).
I was thinking along medical lines but as you rightly point out there's sexual reproduction as well. Male and female is good for those purposes, near as I can tell. There may well be further uses for the finer distinctions within each biological sex but I don't know; I'm not in any way knowledgeable on such matters.
> That which has allowed the human species to exist for around the last 250 000 years or so.
No. The world was created 6000 years ago by a really nice elderly man with a bushy white beard. And mustache.
There is some disagreement as to the color of his skin, although people who matter and are really really smart, agree that he was white. And when he was young, he had golden blonde, thick, wavy hair and a very geometric jaw. Obviously, he has blue eyes. Obviously.
He also created black holes, gravitational waves, galaxies, stars, neutrinos, shrimp, lobsters, and skirt steak. And Caesar salads. And he did this all by himself, in six days.
And then he took a day off, because he was really tired.
So I think this explains this whole gender thing.
He also created black holes, gravitational waves, galaxies, stars, neutrinos, shrimp, lobsters, and skirt steak. And Caesar salads.
Now just you waidaminnit! Didn't S/He also proclaim that eating said shrimp and lobsters were some manner of abomination and would justify willfully and actively disregarding one of His/Her 10 (or maybe 15) Prime Directives?
And wasn't Caesar salad created by a Roman emperor who, while suffering from delusions of actually being said "elderly man with a bushy white beard", really wasn't?
And no one "created" skirt steak. Skirt steak, and it's kissing cousin chicken fried steak, were an accident. And as we all know, the "elderly man with a bushy white beard" doesn't make mistakes. (Says so right 'ere on His/Her card...)
Didn't know which icon to use; difficult choice between the beer icon and the noseblow icon. Either way, +1, well done!
Sex being a biological/medical categorisation and gender being a social or societal one.
I'm not sure which "Oxford dictionary" you refer to, but my 2003 reprint of the 2nd edition Oxford Dictionary of English clearly highlights the chief usage of each of the words in the two definitions, and they match how I use them. This may be different in the OED, admittedly, but I don't have a billion pounds to spend on either the getting-on-a-bit print edition or the online version. I'm not sure whether the corpus would have reflected those usages in the same way in 1989 but it's likely that it does now if it did in 2003.
The rest of your post is actually in agreement with me and others, and nobody's said anything about telepathy. As I'm sure you're aware, a given word is defined by its usage, not by a dictionary — dictionaries will always by definition (sorry) be playing catch-up. But I can see that the distinction has been in at least one dictionary for at least 17 years, so try and be happy that you know this now! I have to admit as a bit of a pedant I'm usually delighted to find out I've been accidentally conflating terms or using words "incorrectly", cause then I can go correcting people myself.
I apologise for my initial tone, I honestly assumed you were aware of the distinction in usage and were just rocking the boat. That's my bad.
If you haven't grown up with the internet, it's often difficult to distinguish fact from fiction online
I think it's more complex than that. Growing up with the internet doesn't make you any less likely to believe fictions in my experience, it's "life experience" in general.
My mum was recently taken in by a "here's how to protect yourself" chain e-mail because it came from someone she knows. Seeing that name in the "From:" header, she disengaged critical thinking that she would have applied had the same thing been printed in the local rag.
But I've known much, much younger people do exactly the same thing. In some cases, obviously rubbish information gets "retweeted" or whatever, without any thought, simply because such a lot of trash appears minute-by-minute.
So far (crossed fingers) my children are working out ok - they have not been exposed to social media from birth and (yes, I know it's not the same thing, but read on) have had to live with NoScript for almost as long as I've been running Firefox. If nothing else, NoScript causes them to pause and think online - "why does this website need to run Javascript from fifteen different sources?" - and they bring that skepticism to daily life. It's quite heartening hearing their reactions to Boris or Donald's latest verbal outpouring if they happen to catch the news!
Perhaps Twitter needs something to make people pause before re-tweeting? "Retweeting this will associate your name with the views in the post. Are you sure you want to do this?"
M.
If an online friend shares something like "Pensioners live on 6,000 a year whilst ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS get 30,000 from the UK government" I tend to attack it indirectly, by reposting the nonsense with a "who believes this shit?" type comment rather than attacking my friend's post directly in a comment. But as Artificial Nowherenear Intelligence is still so limited, FB is sure I'm a major sharer of fake news.
Oh. My. God.
Since when has "growing up with the Internet" been a guarantee of intelligence ? Or critical thinking ?
It seems to me that "growing up with the Internet" has, on the contrary, reinforced stupidity across the globe.
I have had to warn friends of mine who repeatedly posted pics of their underage daughters on Facebook. I am not going to lie, their daughters were beautiful (um, they still are). And that's why I told them to stop posting pics of them continuously on Facebook. As far as I'm concerned, they were literally endangering their girl's lives. Thankfully, they listened.
As far as I'm concerned, if you "haven't grown up with the internet", you might just have a chance at having a bit of a head start on critical thinking. And critical thinking is the one thing that you desperately need when you are surfing the intartubes.
"This email has failed it's domains authentication requirements. It may be spoofed or improperly authenticated"
On an email from my MP's parliamentary account. Admittedly, she is an SNP MP, but still.
I could tell it was her, I've heard her speak. Parliament is in recess but are their IT folk?
This email has failed it's domains authentication requirements. It may be spoofed or improperly authenticated
I have had - for three years or so now - email addresses at ".cymru" and ".wales" TLDs. It is amazing how many companies' online shops refuse to accept those addresses with an excuse similar to the one you quoted, or "this does not appear to be a valid email address" or simply "all fields marked with a * must be completed".
Obviously some ridiculously badly set up spam filter at their end because you can enter utterly rubbish email addresses (joe@sakldjfhakljbg.com) and these sites accept them without problem. Use .cymru or .london or .museum or various other "new" (and >3 character) TLDs, however, and they are rejected out of hand.
I did send a note both to the company looking after the .wales and .cymru TLDs and to the Assembly (or parliament or whatever we're supposed to call it now) but not had any kind of reply.
M.
If you haven't grown up with the internet, it's often difficult to distinguish fact from fiction online
The Internet (i.e. networking using TCP/IP) came into existence in 1982. I was in my late 20s then, so didn't grow up with the internet(*). Nevertheless, I'm a cynical bastard and was even in my early teens.
(*) I had however been internetworking for 2-3 years at that point. Balham, gateway to the south. :-)
Mossley Hill is relatively posh. Also quiet roads at night with poor lighting and lots of vegetation (cover/no patrols), you have to consider the possibility this is, like a lot of crime like this, opportunistic and done by chancer scallies (albeit driving the odd stolen focus/moped) who couldn't care less for conspiracies but certainly have spent a lot of time on facetube and twatter reading about it.
Seriously... If one of them would have gotten off his/her arse to down a tower, it would have gone down, not just stayed slightly damaged..
And no self-respecting Scouser would contemplate risking to be seen in public on an electric bicycle... It's just... Nope...
No one getting through a decent high school education and the most rudimentary understanding of biology and physics could accept any link between the EM transmission of cell towers and spreading a physical disease. It's absurd.
Then again, homeopathy seems to survive high school chemistry...
Of course, religious belief lowers the bar for credulity; that is one of its enduring harms.
Seriously, Sir Tom should walk a hunred laps to purchase us all one.....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52810220
£339 a pop.....
One of nine external members, Toby Hall, said: "We use this device and find it helpful," and provided a link to its website, which describes it as a USB key that "provides protection for your home and family, thanks to the wearable holographic nano-layer catalyser, which can be worn or placed near to a smartphone or any other electrical, radiation or EMF [electromagnetic field] emitting device".
"Through a process of quantum oscillation, the 5GBioShield USB key balances and re-harmonises the disturbing frequencies arising from the electric fog induced by devices, such as laptops, cordless phones, wi-fi, tablets, et cetera," it adds.
Ahh, doesnt say if it has a blue or red LED, im a hovering on purchase, anyone know?
Sometimes we get a reg "reporter" that excels in not quite getting the gist of what is going on.
You really have to pay attention to events to understand the full picture.
Where to start?
1) You know sick people call ambulances using mobile phones, right?
Reply) They are taking out 5G masts. Not every single existing mast that rather shockingly can actually still be used to make calls. I know. Crazy right?
2) The claims around 5G masts "causing" Coronavirus were quickly muddied by the media and twisted into a "Conspiracy theory" so that journalists could actually look stupid while calling others the same. The theory was actually that certain strange behaviours could be linked to having the waves in the vicinity. People falling over in China. Generally feeling a bit "off". So, 5G wasn't initially being said to actually cause Coronavirus but some of the possible symptoms.
3) Call me a cynic. (no doubt some of your less well versed readers will call me a "Flat Earther" and other names that are actually more revealing about their comprehension, but hey). The country is put on lock down. Only essential work must be carried out because otherwise we will all be killing our grandparents (errr, okay?). This didn't stop the roll out of 5G masts and comms networks for some strange reason though. How peculiar. I suppose "essential" means something I wasn't fully aware of.
4) Now, there are some that believe (whether rightly or wrongly) that 5G coupled with the SpaceX program is actually creating a global net of surveillance. Ensuring zero drop out zones in urban areas. Police can fly drones without them dropping off the network to conduct essential crime fighting! How Super is that? Rather humorously the cost of maintaining the drones and paying the 14 year old his paper round wage to fly said drone will still most likely cost more than he/she justifiably quashes in crimes. Others will obviously believe that SpaceX really is so farmers can get a good internet connection. Totes plausible.
Other waffle that was "Reported"/Regurgitated was so transparently about the 5G related firms pretending they care about people. They don't, that's actually "bullshit" they come out with.
Roll on the release of Watch Dogs Legion I say.
Reply) They are taking out 5G masts. Not every single existing mast that rather shockingly can actually still be used to make calls. I know. Crazy right?
Except they are not, actually. Quite a proportion of the masts that have been targeted so far do not have any 5G provision.
Yes, of course they do.
They also believed it of of 2G phone masts (and this at a time when there was still a lot of "1G" around), they believed it of 3G phone masts (by which time everyone had a GSM phone, so obviously 2G was fine now) and they believed it of 4G masts (sorry, that article's a bit generic - it's difficult searching for stories specifically about 4G, but they are out there). They also believed it of WiFi and any number of other new things.
Don't get me wrong - I'm a firm believer in not accepting something as truth just because someone says so - but I also try to apply at least a modicum of critical thinking. Is this likely? Have we seen something similar before? Is this "new" thing actually "new" or just a variation on a theme we've been living with for 10 or 20 years already?
M.
Please inform yourself my friend, otherwise you put yourself at danger by ignoring the facts. It is all about the MHz frequency. 5G is way to high for our bodies. We are no robots, living organisms are very delicate. Of course, it won't fry you directly as you stand :D but being exposed to it for years... can be nasty. Check my latest post at this page if you want to know more.
At the moment, 5G operates within the same frequency bands as 4G, 3G and (to an extent) 2G. Is your delicate body already falling apart after 10 years of 4G signals, 20 years of 3G signals and 30 years of 2G signals? Not to mention the older "1G" analogue systems which also used some of the same frequencies, and broadcast television which has been using large amounts UHF frequencies just below mobile phones (newer phone allocations actually use the same frequencies as UHF TV used to) for 55-odd years and at much, much higher powers than even the beefiest mobile phone transmitters (Crystal Palace, to take a random example, had four analogue TV transmitters, each pushing out 1MW).
As I have pointed out previously no existing phones are able to operate above 3.8GHz (I admit it's been a couple of months since I checked), and as far as I'm aware there is nothing cleared above 6GHz yet, though yes, 5G is expected to use some very high frequencies before too long. If these or the higher frequencies were a problem, perhaps we might already have noticed issues from existing uses such as WiFi (5GHz), PMSE (6GHz), radar, and satellite broadcasts among a huge number of services as can be seen here (click on "SHF" in the drop-down menu).
M.
Dear people, I do not want to mess with your heads, but I would like to ask you, if you could pay attention to one thing. Namely, one should get acquainted with all posible information about the subject of the dispute. 5G technology. Please, read it yourself, in example on this page here: https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/5g-satellites-a-threat-to-all-life/
It is explained as simple as possible. I would recommend reading the article to recognise what are we dealing with exactly. It is worth to notice there are scientific sources on which the research is based at the end of article. If someone still does not want to believe in the harmfulness of the 5G installation that's their rightful choice, but please inform yourself at least. Apologies for my English :) and thank you!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
