Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:49:24 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> Illegal aliens.
>
>Declaring somebody “illegal” ... I wonder what that means? That they have
>no legal right to exist?
>
>(They used to do that--declaring somebody “illegal”--in Apartheid South
>Africa.)

Andrzej believes only white people have rights.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:19:57 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2024-10-22 7:57 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:36:08 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-10-22 4:47 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:32:13 -0400, bad sector wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's time for HW manufacturing (all development AND actual
>>>>> production) to return to the USA/CXanada and Europe.
>>>>
>>>> It went away in the first place because it could not be done cost-
>>>> effectively in those “first-world” countries -- basic free-market
>>>> capitalism in action.
>>>>
>>>> To bring it back would require Government subsidies, or forcing
>>>> customers to pay more. Which would you prefer?
>>>
>>> Considering the largest market for those products is the West,
>>> particularly the United States, it would be possible to bring back
>>> manufacturing by blocking sales of products that don't have a presence
>>> in North America.
>>
>> Easy way around that: set up an empty office like those in East Texas
>> to get jurisdiction under the patent-friendly courts there. There’s
>> your “presence”. Business continues from overseas as usual.
>>
>> What’s your next move?
>
> A manufacturing presence. The company would have to produce whatever it
> sells on the continent it is selling to.

How much of it? Disassembled parts? Or all the way back to raw ore?

On 10/22/24 20:45, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:19:57 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> On 2024-10-22 7:57 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:36:08 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-10-22 4:47 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:32:13 -0400, bad sector wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's time for HW manufacturing (all development AND actual
>>>>>> production) to return to the USA/CXanada and Europe.
>>>>>
>>>>> It went away in the first place because it could not be done cost-
>>>>> effectively in those “first-world” countries -- basic free-market
>>>>> capitalism in action.
>>>>>
>>>>> To bring it back would require Government subsidies, or forcing
>>>>> customers to pay more. Which would you prefer?
>>>>
>>>> Considering the largest market for those products is the West,
>>>> particularly the United States, it would be possible to bring back
>>>> manufacturing by blocking sales of products that don't have a presence
>>>> in North America.
>>>
>>> Easy way around that: set up an empty office like those in East Texas
>>> to get jurisdiction under the patent-friendly courts there. There’s
>>> your “presence”. Business continues from overseas as usual.
>>>
>>> What’s your next move?
>>
>> A manufacturing presence. The company would have to produce whatever it
>> sells on the continent it is selling to.
>
> How much of it? Disassembled parts? Or all the way back to raw ore?

No point in splitting toothpicks, IF the US is in fact the biggest
market then the US calls the shots, all of them, period. I suspect that
with Europe added with a slightly larger population and comparable
living standards just about everything would be decided between those two.

I would exact the same % of manhours as my market share, and very
definitely all publications development & production in european
languages including english.

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 21:17:30 -0400, bad sector wrote:

> IF the US is in fact the biggest> market then the US calls the shots,
> all of them, period.

But it is no longer in that position, and not likely to get back into that
position. At least, not without a lot of pain that its citizens will not
put up with.

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:28:13 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2024-10-22 8:02 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> (They used to do that--declaring somebody “illegal”--in Apartheid South
>> Africa.)
>
> And they were right to do so. South Africa used to be a country of laws
> and social order.

The whites were nutcases, let's face it. They had “whites-only”
hospitals, so somebody who needed care but wasn’t “white” had to be
taken elsewhere -- if they were lucky.

As a 20-something singer touring with the Manhattan Brothers, the
biggest Black band in South Africa, [Miriam Makeba] was involved
in a crash with a white family’s car that left the white father
and one of his children dead. The whites were bundled into an
ambulance and the Blacks were left to die on the side of a
provincial road. The local “white” hospital refused to treat them
and one of Makeba’s companions ended up dying an entirely
preventable death when he finally reached Johannesburg two days
later.

<https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/10/20/why-shouldnt-power-be-black-how-miriam-makeba-won-and-lost-the-us>

On 10/21/24 3:07 PM, Lester Thorpe wrote:
> Distro maintainers, and their lackey consumers, who bloat their GNU/Linux
> distros with performance degrading security "features" should take note
> of the latest exclamations of Linus Torvalds:
>
> "Honestly, I'm pretty damn fed up with buggy hardware and completely theoretical
> attacks that have never actually shown themselves to be used in practice."
>
> https://linux.slashdot.org/story/24/10/21/1533228/linus-torvalds-growing-frustrated-by-buggy-hardware-theoretical-cpu-attacks
>
> Tell 'em, Linus! Those paranoid freaks are ruining desktop computing!

Linus is "kind-of right", but "kind-of not".

The problem is State-funded actors these days
and the MASSIVE computing power they can bring
to bear. At least SOME of those "theoretical"
attack vectors CAN become real attack vectors.

But WHICH ???

Yes, you can go totally overboard on "security",
and, mostly, it won't do much good. Paranoia can
push this to extremes where you can barely use
the system/apps (think Vista) - and I think that's
what Linus is concerned with.

However there ARE 'sensible' security measures
that go beyond mere Linux passwords and a few
port blocks.

"186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> writes:
> The problem is State-funded actors these days and the MASSIVE
> computing power they can bring to bear.

Well, it’s _a_ problem, for people and organizations who are realistic
targets of state actors. But (for example) for most private individuals
the biggest threat is criminals trying to access their bank account or
credit card.

> At least SOME of those "theoretical" attack vectors CAN become real
> attack vectors.
>
> But WHICH ???

The obvious answer is attacks on weak cryptography. RSA-1024 and DH-1024
are probably breakable by the biggest SIGINT agencies (and anyone else
with comparable compute resources: cloud service providers for example).

https://weakdh.org/imperfect-forward-secrecy.pdf attempted to analyse
this (among other things) nearly a decade ago, as a concrete example.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2024-10-22 6:50 p.m., Donald Trump wrote:
>> On 22/10/2024 14:18, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>> So you're in favour of slave labour because you can get your hobby
>>> computer for less?
>>>
>>
>> That's what undocumented migrants are for.
>
> Illegal aliens. Anyone who uses the above term does not deserve to be read.
>
> < snip >

This is the truth. "Migrant" is a weasel word created by the left in order
to slip in the unstated assumption that they somehow have the right to
stay where ever they choose to settle down. It is incorrect and dishonest.

Illegal alien is what they are. Period.

On 10/23/24 00:39, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:28:13 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> On 2024-10-22 8:02 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> (They used to do that--declaring somebody “illegal”--in Apartheid South
>>> Africa.)
>>
>> And they were right to do so. South Africa used to be a country of laws
>> and social order.
>
> The whites were nutcases, let's face it. They had “whites-only”
> hospitals, so somebody who needed care but wasn’t “white” had to be
> taken elsewhere -- if they were lucky.
>
> As a 20-something singer touring with the Manhattan Brothers, the
> biggest Black band in South Africa, [Miriam Makeba] was involved
> in a crash with a white family’s car that left the white father
> and one of his children dead. The whites were bundled into an
> ambulance and the Blacks were left to die on the side of a
> provincial road. The local “white” hospital refused to treat them
> and one of Makeba’s companions ended up dying an entirely
> preventable death when he finally reached Johannesburg two days
> later.
>
> <https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/10/20/why-shouldnt-power-be-black-how-miriam-makeba-won-and-lost-the-us>

Whoever did whatever in South Africa never did, never will, and
certainly doesn't define what is meant by any term elsewhere and that
includes 'illegal alien'. Illegal = unauthorised, unlawful; alien =
foreign, potentially hostile. Nothing complicated really i.e. a squatter
from elsewhere as would be someone who just waltzes into your
living-room and pitches tent there uninvited.

bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:

>Whoever did whatever in South Africa never did, never will, and
>certainly doesn't define what is meant by any term elsewhere and that
>includes 'illegal alien'. Illegal = unauthorised, unlawful; alien =
>foreign, potentially hostile. Nothing complicated really i.e. a squatter
>from elsewhere as would be someone who just waltzes into your
>living-room and pitches tent there uninvited.

Uh huh. You ever hear of Christopher Columbus? Was he born in the
Americas? Or did he just declare land to be the property of Spain,
without any rational basis? What the fuck do you think crackers
coming here were, if not "illegal immigrants"? Just because the
indigenous people hadn't created a system of government to make a law,
against their arrival? Despite the fact whities massacred indigenous
people, to gain territory here? Wake the fuck up.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 10/23/2024 03:07, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 10/21/24 3:07 PM, Lester Thorpe wrote:
>> Distro maintainers, and their lackey consumers, who bloat their GNU/Linux
>> distros with performance degrading security "features" should take note
>> of the latest exclamations of Linus Torvalds:
>>
>> "Honestly, I'm pretty damn fed up with buggy hardware and completely
>> theoretical
>> attacks that have never actually shown themselves to be used in
>> practice."
>>
>> https://linux.slashdot.org/story/24/10/21/1533228/linus-torvalds-
>> growing-frustrated-by-buggy-hardware-theoretical-cpu-attacks
>>
>> Tell 'em, Linus!  Those paranoid freaks are ruining desktop computing!
>
>   Linus is "kind-of right", but "kind-of not".
>
>   The problem is State-funded actors these days
>   and the MASSIVE computing power they can bring
>   to bear. At least SOME of those "theoretical"
>   attack vectors CAN become real attack vectors.
>
>   But WHICH ???
>
>   Yes, you can go totally overboard on "security",
>   and, mostly, it won't do much good. Paranoia can
>   push this to extremes where you can barely use
>   the system/apps (think Vista) - and I think that's
>   what Linus is concerned with.
>
>   However there ARE 'sensible' security measures
>   that go beyond mere Linux passwords and a few
>   port blocks.
>

I think the point that Linus was making was just that, even if these
'theoretical' attack vectors were actual issues, the CPU manufacturer's
need to be the one patching it with a firmware update. Hardware related
attacks need to be fixed by the hardware MFG and Linux should only fix
software related attack vectors. I think that was the point Linus was
making here. The kernel should not be the go-to agency for fixing
hardware-specific security issues, nor should it be the kernel's job
anyways. It's like, Boeing having a problem with an engine from another
manufacturer. Who fixes the engine? It should be the engine manufacturer
not some Boeing software engineer adding something to the throttle
control system to 'mitigate' the issue.

At least that was how I took it. I don't think Linus was trying to
downplay the security aspect of it. I think it's just, it's not a "Linux
Problem". Go fix your sh*t Intel/AMD. But that's just my take on the
article.

--
Phillip Frabott
----------
- Adam: Is a void really a void if it returns?
- Jack: No, it's just nullspace at that point.
----------

On 2024-10-22 8:45 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:19:57 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> On 2024-10-22 7:57 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:36:08 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-10-22 4:47 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:32:13 -0400, bad sector wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's time for HW manufacturing (all development AND actual
>>>>>> production) to return to the USA/CXanada and Europe.
>>>>>
>>>>> It went away in the first place because it could not be done cost-
>>>>> effectively in those “first-world” countries -- basic free-market
>>>>> capitalism in action.
>>>>>
>>>>> To bring it back would require Government subsidies, or forcing
>>>>> customers to pay more. Which would you prefer?
>>>>
>>>> Considering the largest market for those products is the West,
>>>> particularly the United States, it would be possible to bring back
>>>> manufacturing by blocking sales of products that don't have a presence
>>>> in North America.
>>>
>>> Easy way around that: set up an empty office like those in East Texas
>>> to get jurisdiction under the patent-friendly courts there. There’s
>>> your “presence”. Business continues from overseas as usual.
>>>
>>> What’s your next move?
>>
>> A manufacturing presence. The company would have to produce whatever it
>> sells on the continent it is selling to.
>
> How much of it? Disassembled parts? Or all the way back to raw ore?

This statement demonstrates how much progressives care about the people
being enslaved in foreign countries to produce the goods we Westerners
purchase at low prices. They have a huge heart until you tell them that
their cell phone might cost $50 more because 'Bile in Africa is suddenly
getting a living wage.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On 2024-10-23 12:39 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:28:13 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> On 2024-10-22 8:02 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> (They used to do that--declaring somebody “illegal”--in Apartheid South
>>> Africa.)
>>
>> And they were right to do so. South Africa used to be a country of laws
>> and social order.
>
> The whites were nutcases, let's face it. They had “whites-only”
> hospitals, so somebody who needed care but wasn’t “white” had to be
> taken elsewhere -- if they were lucky.
>
> As a 20-something singer touring with the Manhattan Brothers, the
> biggest Black band in South Africa, [Miriam Makeba] was involved
> in a crash with a white family’s car that left the white father
> and one of his children dead. The whites were bundled into an
> ambulance and the Blacks were left to die on the side of a
> provincial road. The local “white” hospital refused to treat them
> and one of Makeba’s companions ended up dying an entirely
> preventable death when he finally reached Johannesburg two days
> later.
>
> <https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/10/20/why-shouldnt-power-be-black-how-miriam-makeba-won-and-lost-the-us>

Nothing was stopping blacks from building their own hospitals the same
way that progressives are now demanding that conservatives build their
own platforms. If they don't like the fact that whites don't want to
stink up their rooms by allowing blacks in them, it's up to blacks to
fix the situation... or are you admitting that they're not up to the task?

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On 2024-10-23 4:05 a.m., D wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> On 2024-10-22 6:50 p.m., Donald Trump wrote:
>>> On 22/10/2024 14:18, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So you're in favour of slave labour because you can get your hobby
>>>> computer for less?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's what undocumented migrants are for.
>>
>> Illegal aliens. Anyone who uses the above term does not deserve to be
>> read.
>>
>> < snip >
>
> This is the truth. "Migrant" is a weasel word created by the left in
> order to slip in the unstated assumption that they somehow have the
> right to stay where ever they choose to settle down. It is incorrect and
> dishonest.
>
> Illegal alien is what they are. Period.

I don't even think they deserve to be called leftists anymore. They are
stupid and should be called such. There is the right and the stupid.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On 10/23/24 07:31, Joel wrote:
> bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
>
>> Whoever did whatever in South Africa never did, never will, and
>> certainly doesn't define what is meant by any term elsewhere and that
>> includes 'illegal alien'. Illegal = unauthorised, unlawful; alien =
>> foreign, potentially hostile. Nothing complicated really i.e. a squatter
>>from elsewhere as would be someone who just waltzes into your
>> living-room and pitches tent there uninvited.
>
> Uh huh. You ever hear of Christopher Columbus?

Sure, far too much even; he was a paper christian if at all whom the
vatican was about to BBQ so he quickly found himself a sweetheart deal
with the spanish queen to get the fuck outta Dodge and just in time.

> Was he born in the
> Americas? Or did he just declare land to be the property of Spain,
> without any rational basis? What the fuck do you think crackers
> coming here were, if not "illegal immigrants"?

What DECIDED whom the land belonged to was the size of the Spanish navy,
also the British, the French, and the German to name the top guns. When
did you get off the boat?

> Just because the
> indigenous people hadn't created a system of government to make a law,
> against their arrival? Despite the fact whities massacred indigenous
> people, to gain territory here?

Laws without power mean didley shit, but who was talking about the USA?
What is it with Americans that unless someone specifically says 'this is
not about the USA' they always think that everyone on usenet is by
default thinking and talking about them? The illegal migrant problem is
at crisis levels in Europe for example, far worse than stateside.

> Wake the fuck up.

Land is like a woman, belongs to the last man standing subject only to
her wanting any of him regardless. There is no ancestral 'right' that I
know of or would accept.

On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 10:06:39 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2024-10-22 8:45 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:19:57 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-10-22 7:57 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:36:08 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-10-22 4:47 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:32:13 -0400, bad sector wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's time for HW manufacturing (all development AND actual
>>>>>>> production) to return to the USA/CXanada and Europe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It went away in the first place because it could not be done cost-
>>>>>> effectively in those “first-world” countries -- basic free-market
>>>>>> capitalism in action.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To bring it back would require Government subsidies, or forcing
>>>>>> customers to pay more. Which would you prefer?
>>>>>
>>>>> Considering the largest market for those products is the West,
>>>>> particularly the United States, it would be possible to bring back
>>>>> manufacturing by blocking sales of products that don't have a
>>>>> presence in North America.
>>>>
>>>> Easy way around that: set up an empty office like those in East Texas
>>>> to get jurisdiction under the patent-friendly courts there. There’s
>>>> your “presence”. Business continues from overseas as usual.
>>>>
>>>> What’s your next move?
>>>
>>> A manufacturing presence. The company would have to produce whatever
>>> it sells on the continent it is selling to.
>>
>> How much of it? Disassembled parts? Or all the way back to raw ore?
>
> This statement demonstrates ...

That you have no idea how to answer the question.

On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:01:18 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> I don't even think they deserve to be called leftists anymore. They are
> stupid and should be called such. There is the right and the stupid.

Have you anti-abortionists figured out yet whether you support IVF or not?
Does “life begin at conception” apply in a Petri dish as well, or only in
a woman’s body?

On 2024-10-23 5:29 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:01:18 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> I don't even think they deserve to be called leftists anymore. They are
>> stupid and should be called such. There is the right and the stupid.
>
> Have you anti-abortionists figured out yet whether you support IVF or not?
> Does “life begin at conception” apply in a Petri dish as well, or only in
> a woman’s body?

I don't speak for all of us who don't believe in infanticide as you do.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On 2024-10-22, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 22/10/2024 13:32, bad sector wrote:
>> On 10/22/24 07:44, Phillip Frabott wrote:
>>
>> It's time for HW manufacturing (all development AND actual production)
>> to return to the USA/CXanada and Europe.
>>
> And then a raspberry Pi will cost $1000 instead of $100

You want me to believe that Sony UK is currently manufacutring them 10 times
cheaper in Wales than is possible in USA?

--
Jasen.
🇺🇦 Слава Україні

On 2024-10-23, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> On 2024-10-22 8:45 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:19:57 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-10-22 7:57 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:36:08 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-10-22 4:47 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:32:13 -0400, bad sector wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's time for HW manufacturing (all development AND actual
>>>>>>> production) to return to the USA/CXanada and Europe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It went away in the first place because it could not be done cost-
>>>>>> effectively in those “first-world” countries -- basic free-market
>>>>>> capitalism in action.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To bring it back would require Government subsidies, or forcing
>>>>>> customers to pay more. Which would you prefer?
>>>>>
>>>>> Considering the largest market for those products is the West,
>>>>> particularly the United States, it would be possible to bring back
>>>>> manufacturing by blocking sales of products that don't have a presence
>>>>> in North America.
>>>>
>>>> Easy way around that: set up an empty office like those in East Texas
>>>> to get jurisdiction under the patent-friendly courts there. There’s
>>>> your “presence”. Business continues from overseas as usual.
>>>>
>>>> What’s your next move?
>>>
>>> A manufacturing presence. The company would have to produce whatever it
>>> sells on the continent it is selling to.
>>
>> How much of it? Disassembled parts? Or all the way back to raw ore?
>
> This statement demonstrates how much progressives care about the people
> being enslaved in foreign countries to produce the goods we Westerners
> purchase at low prices.

Indeed, it shows that progressives consider policy while conservatives
are only interested in rhetoric. He didn't say it was a bad plan, he
said that it was in incomplete plan.

> They have a huge heart until you tell them that
> their cell phone might cost $50 more because 'Bile in Africa is suddenly
> getting a living wage.

You post this slander without any evidence that it not actually
projection..

--
Jasen.
🇺🇦 Слава Україні

On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 21:17:45 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2024-10-23 5:29 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:01:18 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> I don't even think they deserve to be called leftists anymore. They
>>> are stupid and should be called such. There is the right and the
>>> stupid.
>>
>> Have you anti-abortionists figured out yet whether you support IVF or
>> not? Does “life begin at conception” apply in a Petri dish as well, or
>> only in a woman’s body?
>
> I don't speak for all of us who don't believe in infanticide as you do.

Is IVF “infanticide” as well?

On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 09:01:24 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

> The obvious answer is attacks on weak cryptography. RSA-1024 and DH-1024
> are probably breakable by the biggest SIGINT agencies (and anyone else
> with comparable compute resources: cloud service providers for example).

Weak cryptography is easy to fix. The hard part to fix is weak random
numbers.

On 10/23/24 17:29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:01:18 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> I don't even think they deserve to be called leftists anymore. They are
>> stupid and should be called such. There is the right and the stupid.
>
> Have you anti-abortionists figured out yet whether you support IVF or not?
> Does “life begin at conception” apply in a Petri dish as well, or only in
> a woman’s body?

Humanitary exception can be made in the case of a married hetero couple
who cannot procreate otherwise, and what the left calls anti-abortion is
actually anti-UNCONDITIONAL-abortion i.e. anti
abortion-as-birth-control. That said, society should require cognitive,
IQ, and psy. testing for a permit to marry, procreate, vote, drive a car
or own guns, the last two on a yearly basis. The left is misreading and
twisting everything ever since it created the twiggy movement (to eat no
fats) because its barbie-boy neo-males with trimmed little goaties to
appear more masculine than they actually are needed a skinny less
intimidating female form promising easier access to underdeveloped
sexual organs. Unfortunately fats are needed by the brain to function.
Enter the WOKE generation: mama-molested fuckbrain zombies.

On 24/10/2024 12:31, bad sector wrote:
> On 10/23/24 17:29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:01:18 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> I don't even think they deserve to be called leftists anymore. They are
>>> stupid and should be called such. There is the right and the stupid.
>>
>> Have you anti-abortionists figured out yet whether you support IVF or
>> not?
>> Does “life begin at conception” apply in a Petri dish as well, or only in
>> a woman’s body?
>
> Humanitary exception can be made in the case of a married hetero couple
> who cannot procreate otherwise, and what the left calls anti-abortion is
> actually anti-UNCONDITIONAL-abortion i.e. anti
> abortion-as-birth-control. That said, society should require cognitive,
> IQ, and psy. testing for a permit to marry, procreate, vote, drive a car
> or own guns, the last two on a yearly basis. The left is misreading and
> twisting everything ever since it created the twiggy movement (to eat no
> fats) because its barbie-boy neo-males with trimmed little goaties to
> appear more masculine than they actually are needed a skinny less
> intimidating female form promising easier access to underdeveloped
> sexual organs. Unfortunately fats are needed by the brain to function.
> Enter the WOKE generation: mama-molested fuckbrain zombies.
>
>

Christ on a bike.

In the end women wanting to rid themselves of a child always find a way.
Half of the argument to legalise it was to get rid of 'back street'
abortionists feeding poisons to or sticking knitting needles in the mother.

Many of whom died.

Having different laws to a next door country simply encourages abortion
tourism. Plenty of nice Irish catholic girls took a trip to London...

...if it was outlawed in Montana, they would doubtless find a short trip
to California of use...

But the whole mess is all part of people taking up *moral* positions.

Buying into to socialists 'fairness' and 'justice' or religious 'right
to life' and other such hand wavery bollocks.

The fact is that legalisation brought no more abortions, just less
deaths of mothers.

--
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities.”

― Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de
Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de
M. de Voltaire

On 2024-10-23 11:25 p.m., Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2024-10-23, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2024-10-22 8:45 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:19:57 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-10-22 7:57 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:36:08 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2024-10-22 4:47 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:32:13 -0400, bad sector wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's time for HW manufacturing (all development AND actual
>>>>>>>> production) to return to the USA/CXanada and Europe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It went away in the first place because it could not be done cost-
>>>>>>> effectively in those “first-world” countries -- basic free-market
>>>>>>> capitalism in action.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To bring it back would require Government subsidies, or forcing
>>>>>>> customers to pay more. Which would you prefer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Considering the largest market for those products is the West,
>>>>>> particularly the United States, it would be possible to bring back
>>>>>> manufacturing by blocking sales of products that don't have a presence
>>>>>> in North America.
>>>>>
>>>>> Easy way around that: set up an empty office like those in East Texas
>>>>> to get jurisdiction under the patent-friendly courts there. There’s
>>>>> your “presence”. Business continues from overseas as usual.
>>>>>
>>>>> What’s your next move?
>>>>
>>>> A manufacturing presence. The company would have to produce whatever it
>>>> sells on the continent it is selling to.
>>>
>>> How much of it? Disassembled parts? Or all the way back to raw ore?
>>
>> This statement demonstrates how much progressives care about the people
>> being enslaved in foreign countries to produce the goods we Westerners
>> purchase at low prices.
>
> Indeed, it shows that progressives consider policy while conservatives
> are only interested in rhetoric.

Complete bullshit.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.