Sign into an existing account

If this is a way to discourage people from flying, the timing is off. The TVs should be in the check in area and not the gates.

Much like the "security theater" at the gate areas of the airport, where the announcements to not leave bags unattended - if EVERYBODY has already gone through security, what is the threat of unattended bags there? Retards.

Hopefully someone smarter than I am can chime in with better facts.

My simplistic understand of the US Constitution created 3 branches of government that are co-equal with regards to laws.

First, Congress makes laws, then the President signs or vetoes the laws based on "constitutionality" and then lastly the judicial can rule on the constitutionality of the laws when challenges spring up.

What I am seeing is that the (((judiciary))) is starting to overstep by intervening when there are no "laws" to judge.

Congress creates the laws and then the Executive enforces the laws, many times as they see fit, and within the scope of the Executive branch - which is where Executive Orders come in.

Some of the legal challenges do seem legit, such as the spending conditions - were those conditions contained in the law when the budget was passed? If there were no conditions, then it seems like the budget is just a pot of money that the Executive can dole out as they see fit, including adding conditions for receipt and stipulations for spending.

Where I find it hard to decipher is when the (((jewdicial))) branch tries to thwart a totally enclosed Executive Branch power - such as hiring and firing workers. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any law about hiring and firing, and especially the union bullshit - yet the courts try to jump in all the time and tell the Executive **HOW** to do their job.

Telling another branch HOW to do their job is not a power delegated to the other branches.

Where is the SCOTUS ruling on how Congress makes a law? The Executive also totally leaves Congress alone to do their business. Yes, there are talks, etc, but in following the example set the by the judiciary, the Executive should be able to walk into the Halls of Congress and force everyone to follow some arbitrary rule.

What the jewdicial overreach has sparked in me is an actual process whereby the Executive can actually influence courtroom behavior - fair is fair right?

The most fantastic test case would be the James Younger, where his description of (((family court))) is so corrupt that the Executive should actually be compelled to act. No recordings allowed, the transcripts altered to make all testimony fit the biased courts, no FOIA requests for transcripts or evidence, etc.

The Executive should be all over this shit and crush the jewdical corruption, all while giving a healthy dose of "eye for an eye".

Instead of all subs just having the blue link color (browser controlled?) and all subverse names looking the same, I think it would be helpful if there was a way to identify all the subs that have owners/mods that delete or block users.

As a free speech site, many users expect comments and discussions to be essentially unmoderated, except for the legal reasons. Yet some mods love to delete comments and block users for no reason, which then builds hate for them (think kicked out 109 times) and the mods claim to be "the victims" when users turn on them.

A way to indicate that a sub is censored would allow users to focus energies on truly free speech areas, and not give attention to the niggerfaggot mods that censor a **free speech forum**.

I don't have the best answer to how to do this, but one way would be to add the word "censored" next to the sub name in some fashion. Like *sub "censored"*, or *sub (censored)*, or whatever. Color would be another way, but if the browsers designate link colors then that wouldn't be standardized for everyone.

Or perhaps just a post will all the censored subs listed to help people - although that would eventually get buried and new users wouldn't be able to see the list right away.

Any other ideas would be appreciated.

A co-worker has a three clocks that set the time using the GPS or "Atomic" time signals. Last week he says that on May 18, one of the clocks displayed the date as August 6, instead of being May 18. The display is M/D, and showed 8/6 instead of 5/18.

The clock had a sync signal and this date only lasted one day, on May 19 the clock date reset properly. The other two clocks, one of the same brand, and one different brand, were both unaffected.

I don't know how the automatic setting clocks work, he said there is a signal that bounces around with the perfect correct time on it.

Any thoughts on what could be the cause?

Topic came up in a discussion about Omegle shutting down.

Everyone needs an "approved" modem to connect to an ISP. And from what I understand, the modem uses the DNS to find web sites, etc. Is the DNS after the modem in the ISP server side?

The ultimate question is this: could a modem capture all of the header data from every website visit and search and store that in a log, even if using a VPN?

I don't understand the networking side of things very well, but a quick search explanation says that a VPN creates an encrypted tunnel between my computer and the VPN servers - does that mean my DNS lookups happen at the VPN now?

In terms of opsec, all my activity and searches are now stored at the VPN (even the ones that say they don't log anything), and the ISP modem only really sees just "traffic"?

My thought was that the ISP modem would capture all URLs and log those, and because the "approved" modems most likely log everything and allow ISPs to download those logs remotely, nothing can be trusted. In those crime shows where the zogbots get "browsing history", really they are getting the URL logs from the ISP, that the customer (me) has no ability to delete or even know they are there.

My counter to this would be to create a script that will constantly spam the router with a fake URL that would fill up the log very quickly. Whether that log writes over old entry, like a dashcam does, or if the ISP never expects the log file to fill up and just locks at that point, I don't know.

Is it worth it to look at this? I was thinking of just writing a version of a webcrawler script that will just try to get a fake URL over and over with a large payload (no idea what the max is - 256 characters? 10k characters?) and just do this forever.

Interesting turn of the tables.

redditards (and bots) are decrying the girl's behavior as predatorial and "rape", but I have yet to see anything regarding the flip side - where redditards always support a man's choice to deceive other men by not telling the truth.

I'm starting to not believe any of the article is real, and may have been written by an AI - it is all very bizarre, yet the editor decided to run it. (((media))) is a circus now and can't be trusted.

Always lawyer up. Teach this to everyone. Especially now that zogbots will start to use new tactics against anyone.

zogbots love to use (((enhanced interrogation))) methods already, and several high profile cases have been showcased where confessions were false afterwards. Imagine how many low level plebs have fallen due to these interrogations?

Now the game is even more rigged. If the only recording of the 16+ hour "interview" is under the zogbot control, what jury will ever doubt that the accused confessing - even if the accused says the recording is a deep fake?

Claims of deep fake will probably be made by both sides now, but juries will probably still tend to believe zogbots and video over an innocent person.

I would probably carry a large piece of paper in my pocket at all times with the word "lawyer" on it now too, considering that it only takes a minimal amount of audio capture to generate any realistic audio deep fakes. Don't say a word. Just write or produce the paper that says "lawyer".

Lawyers need to get 360 degree recording devices now (potential product market?) that will record the zogbots and the accused at the same time with timestamps, etc, that can be used as proof for the actual interview.

I have received a flurry of articles from friends that discuss the best (((practices))) for preventing school shootings.

Here is one excerpt: (turn off scripts to read the full article)
https://www.inforum.com/opinion/columns/hulett-best-practices-for-preventing-targeted-school-violence

-------------------

Students are most often motivated to plan a school attack because of interpersonal conflicts with classmates, highlighting the necessity for interventions and de-escalation programs.

Students displaying an interest in violent or hate-filled topics should prompt immediate assessment and intervention. Nearly one-third of the plotters in the study researched previous mass attackers.

Schools should attempt to intervene with disturbed students before their behavior warrants legal consequences.

Schools and communities must take tangible steps to facilitate classmate reporting when threatening social media posts or other concerning behaviors are observed.

Eight plots in the study were reported by family members, illustrating their crucial role in recognizing and addressing a student’s risk of causing harm.

Families must be educated on resources readily available to address their concerns, whether in the school or in the greater community.

Threat assessments must examine a student’s access to weapons, particularly in the home.

School resource officers are important players in school violence prevention. In nearly one-third of the study’s cases, an SRO either reported the plot or responded to a report made by someone else.

Simply removing a student from the school without appropriate community supports will not remove the risk of harm they pose to themselves or others.

------------------------

I can't help but notice every (((practice))) is geared toward finding and/or thwarting the potential "shooter", who is most likely ostracized and bullied by peers constantly.

The missing "practices" seem to be

1) Tell every student: don't bully people that are different than you. How about "be excellent to each other"? How many people randomly shot up schools decades ago - when guns were actually brought to school (of course, these were White schools)? Very few, if any.

Population sizes were a lot smaller (thanks kikes) and people were actually friends in and out of classes, because there was very little mindless drivel that we are surrounded by today.

2) most schools use some sort of "faceberg" type online lessons that students are required to engage in. This obviously leads to abuses that can't be monitored or controlled by school officials, and if the school does monitor contact between students, most bullying is written off as "kids will be kids" etc.

It's really hard to get away from bullying when the school forces students to interact with each other online through required lessons.

In the past, bullying could be seen as a minor issue - a few students that anyone bullied could avoid or at least confront one on one. But now every interaction is shared and "liked", leading to the bullied person knowing how everyone feels about them.

I agree this bullshit has false flag written all over it.

Where is the compassion for all the kids still being bullied? Is it a wonder why shootings are going to keep happening when the bullied kids are still not being supported and bullies and harassers keep getting away with it, and also have unofficial school support?

Been talking off and on with people in the US, and one mentioned getting an IRS letter about how pedo joe's "stimulus" check was actually counted against them as a "refund" for the 2021 tax year.

Is that a thing? How many people got this letter?

Then the whole "cash for kids" stimulus checks - how do those work?

The situation was that the receiver of the stimulus check had to include it on the "refund" portion, making the final refund a lot lower due to the prepayment.

Yet there are sheboons that have many kids, and collecting $300/mo for each one - in cash - and not even having a job? How does that work?

Does the sheboon have to say that she received (tens of?) thousands of dollars from cash for kids, and in the return just get to keep it because no job?

If this is the case, it just infuriates me - why does a nigger with no job get to collect thousands of dollars from the taxpayers (yeah, all fake money at this point) while hard working people have to either pay back the money from the "stimulus" checks, or reduce their refund.

Just retarded.

Interesting research.

My first thought is "obviously, because the nigger burglars are being blown away".

I haven't seen where the data is split between "offender" and "defender".

The "defender" in a home invasion (assuming that is the most likely - but not sole - situation to stand ground) has zero chance in a non-stand-your-ground state, but can release hellfire in a SYG state.

The fact that burglaries are so high in non-gun countries makes me wonder what the point of the study was, besides trying to outlaw guns again.

Wordphiles and numberphiles rejoice!

Taco Twosday anyone?

Feeling like an idiot for a few minutes.