oxjox @ oxjox @lemmy.ml

Posts

31

Comments

1,265

Joined

2 yr. ago

So your evidence that it was only spoken about in my social circle is that your social circle didn't talk about it?

The jet fuel burning steal beams is an interesting one. I remember, perhaps weeks after the event, if not days, scientists being interviewed on national news explaining the science about this and being very clear that this was certainly plausible - it wasn't just the jet fuel but the surrounding materials and chimney like effect of the building which increased the fire's temperature (don't quote me on these details).

How it became the most prominent conspiracy theory is wild to me. Not dissimilar from a random xenophobic Facebook post about illegal immigrants eat pets becoming a major talking point during a presidential debate. Or how it was verified that the 2020 election was the most secure in our nation's history yet more than half of Americans believe voter fraud is a serious threat.

As you've pointed out, that's just a fraction of the "coincidences" surrounding this event. Individually, I could understand they'd be forgotten or swept under the rug but as a whole, it's just a lot of stuff to swallow if you want to believe the "official" report. At the same time, I acknowledge that for this many "coincidences" to be planned out would probably be impossible to cover up.

In comparison, consider what's know and still covered up about the JFK assassination. This is relatively small potatoes in scale compared to 9/11.

True. What ultimate came out of the event was the revelation that our intelligence communities were siloed from each other. This (embarrassing) point of failure may aid in explaining some of the questions in regard to preparedness.

highly debatable if they knew enough to stop it.

Well, the theory that was floated at the time was that they didn’t want to stop it. The very fringe suggested it was entirely planned by the US. They (Bush et al) knew this would provoke our military and provide an excuse to attack the Middle East. To finish was Bush senior didn’t.

Again, I don’t really want to get down a rabbit hole of validating theories. I want to know if others recall this being a national conversation or if it was just the hundreds of people I knew and news outlets I was watching.

I’ve talked about it with a lot of people over the years and have yet to meet a single conspiracy theorist.

These theories were floated, with legitimacy, on local and national news, at the time. Not in the sense of, “it’s theorized that there were antifa plants at Jan 6” but “look here at this video and you could see how some implosion experts are saying this is the pattern for a scheduled building collapse”. They were interviewing people in manhattan who had concerns about a government coverup.

At the time, the regular news (before it got ridiculous) was pulling together all these theories and presenting them together. It was overwhelming that there was much more to this event. And it seems to have all been forgotten.

most people just forgot about, or stopped listening to the conspiracies.

This is what I think happened. People just stopped caring and defaulted back to "trusting the government" or were distracted by other things like the war in Afghanistan and the 2008 financial crisis.

In my mind, these theories were still prevalent for at least a few years after the attacks. And now, 20 years later, people forgot so much that they've accepted that only weirdo internet trolls believe in these fringe theories.

Sure. Regardless, their terms and conditions should give you some idea of how they're using technology to permit and/or restrict access.

The reason that an iTunes video purchase is encrypted illegal to copy is because it is illegal to break the encryption in order to make a copy

FTFY

I don't think content providers are encrypting things because it's illegal to decrypt things. They're encrypting things because the content producers (movie studios) want to ensure that (1) they're getting paid for the content, (1B) it's not given away for free and, (2) they're in business to make money.

To my knowledge, there are no laws about making copies. Breaking encryption is illegal because the encryption itself is protected under law. Selling copies is illegal. Playing copies of something for which you are not permitted or do not legally own a license to watch is illegal. So, if you make a copy of a cassette tape, legal; profiting from that copy, illegal.

Copyright law is not contract law.

Some items have time limits - such as renting a movie from iTunes or Amazon or borrowing a book from a physical or digital library. You are entering a contract with the provider where they grant you temporary access to something. If you were to make a copy of something you were given temporary access to, you are breaking the contract.

I don't know what the agreement is for football organizations or your content provider. If you're breaking broadcast or HDMI encryption to record a stream, that's illegal. If you're somehow bypassing encryption, that is probably legal. I do know that it's illegal to re-broadcast the content in public and to resell that program. There are also some fair use rules (in the US) which permit limited use for commentary and education purposes.

I don't know if people so much disagree about it as much as some people just don't want any (brown) immigrants at all. Mostly, this is because of the propaganda and hate mongering spewed by right wing media and political leaders causing people to be fearful of immigrants taking their jobs, raping them, and [sighs] eating their pets.

The issue is that this country is so racist and xenophobic that it's entirely ignoring real solutions. Immigration reform requires greater investment in border patrol and courts as well as helping other countries reduce the problems causing people to seek asylum. It's not just the southern border that needs help. I know people from European countries and Canada emigrating to the US who have waited staggeringly long times to become US citizens. The whole system needs help.

We could be doing good. We could be embracing the most American thing ever and welcoming and helping people to be their best selves. We need to overcome our stereotypical beliefs and get to know each other as human beings without borders dividing us.

If you have legally obtained something, you have agreed to the terms of ownership with the provider / owner / creator of the content. Whether you find a document on your computer or you have paid for it, it does not explicitly give you full ownership of that data forever.

For example: if you buy a DVD from a store, you're actually purchasing a license to watch the content of that DVD. If you were to give or sell that disc to someone else, you are transferring your permission to watch that disc to them. So, if you were to rip that movie to your computer, legally - you only have permission to watch that for as long as you are in possession of that physical media.
Conversely, if you were to "buy" a movie from an online platform, they may relinquish your right to watch that movie if the publisher of that content (or a government agency) no longer permits them to stream that content to you. If you were to download that movie, that does not change the agreement you made with the service to watch it. This is why it's not possible to save an iTunes video purchase to your computer in a non-encrypted format.

In other words, you've got to read the terms and conditions. Even then, they may change the terms and conditions of the agreement.

Digital tools as you've described could be used by the service to manage access to content. A book's author or publisher may object to the book being available for free. There may be limits on the amount of time you can read a book. Some content may be public domain but there may be versions of that content which the publisher has altered to in some way making some portions of the book not public domain.

Knowingly possessing something that was not freely provided to you or the public by the licensed owner, or otherwise known to be unprotected by copyright, is not legal. Just because a file is cached on your device does not mean you are the legal owner of that content forever.

There's a number of reasons you may be charged to download a pdf. It could be a means of legally granting ownership and sharing revenue with the content owner. It could be because the authorized provider of the content is simply charging to maintain the service you've acquired the content from. It could be both or it could be a sketchy website just trying to get your CC info.

This is coming from the perspective of someone in the US. I'm not sure about the rest of the world but imagine basic copyright laws are similar around the world.

He’s a compulsive liar who’s angry at things he’s fabricated for his own benefit. How the fuck is he even being considered for the job?

🤔 which is more news worthy:
1 - the chairman of the house judiciary committee tweeted a picture of trump hugging a kitten and a duck.
2 - a member of the committee calling him out and asking if he's okay because he posted the picture.
3 - The claim that "aliens are eating pets".

The origin of the claim that Haitians are eating pets in Ohio appears to stem from right-wing media accounts running with a Fox News story about an Ohio woman named Allexis Telia Ferrell, who was arrested for allegedly killing and eating a cat. The report about the lone woman sparked claims that Haitians are kidnapping people’s pets and eating them.

They're rightfully attacking you because you started the thread by making yourself the story.

To cut through the nonsense and save everyone time, especially since many in this community have a habit of resorting to personal attacks when responding to my posts recently

I don't know who you are. I clicked on this post to read about the context of the story. Instead, the first thing I read is some annoying cry baby monologue about you, as if you matter.

You are doing exactly the opposite of cutting through nonsense and saving me time.

So what if you have an agenda? Everyone posting something has a perspective or reason why they're posting it. If you continue to get downvoted or your posts are removed, perhaps this isn't the sub for you to post this content. Otherwise, just let people read the story without adding your own commentary about yourself. If you want to add context to the story, do it about the story, not you or your post history.

Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and block you being that you seem more concerned with your own ego than the news you're pretending to care about. It's not beneficial to me.

local news being owned by news conglomerates

Yeah - I've watched the Sinclair segment. I recognize that but that's not the case everywhere. More troubling is how local newspapers are struggling and going out of business. I'm in Philadelphia where we still have decent locally-owned and/or operated journalism.

I'm not sure how the lawsuit would go down but I'd be open to whatever it takes to make the right changes. Perhaps the threat of digging into city coffers is precisely why nothing has happened in forty years. It's already costing tax payers millions of dollars every year to not recycle. I'd support millions to hold people accountable and make the needed changes if that means saving us money down the road.

You’re making a very big deal about who you are. Why go out of your way to excuse your actions on top of simply posting an article?

My previous comment asking who OP was was removed. I'll try again without the F word.

Who are you?

I don't even have vibration on. The display will turn on to show notifications but the vast majority of the time my phone is in another room on the charger. I even leave it at home some times.

I've had trouble listening to podcasts while I'm home doing other things. Perhaps I should try audio books and sitting down to do nothing but that. Generally, I don't like audio books for a bunch of reasons but they could be applicable for this issue. Thanks for the suggestion.

The only person you're fooling here is yourself.

Are the dudes fragile looking or not? Do they look dehumanised or not?

This is not for you to tell others what they should or should not look like.

Adding the fact that you're so obsessed that you're reading the comments from girls who want to date them is a very clear sign that you do have some issues to address. This is not healthy or normal.

It seems like you are the fragile one, or at least your ego is. You feel that your masculinity is threatened by the amount of power held by others whom you perceive to be weaker than you. You're insecure in yourself when everything you believe to be what a man is supposed to be is perhaps working against you. The matter is that what's actually working against you is your toxic presumption of what a man is supposed to be. I'm sure there are plenty of women (and men) who find you very attractive and appreciate the masculinity you can bring to a relationship. These people probably aren't fans of Kpop stars so you have nothing to worry about.

It's very, very odd that you're fixated on this.

I dunno man, if you are a girl wouldn’t you a dude that, yeah, he’s attractive but also that looks manly? That can physically protect you? And that does not has a doll face?..

It's a band. Not a dating game.

If anyone's obsessed with something, it appears you're obsessed with things you claim not to enjoy. Sounds more like you have some personal insecurities you should be addressing.

I don't understand the obsession with Taylor Swift. Although, other than "Shake it off", I wouldn't recognize any of her songs. I'm a middle aged straight guy and have every one of Billy Eilish's records. I think she's talented and I like her vibe. My 77 year old uncle was the biggest Cindy Lauper fan I've ever known. My 80 year old uncle is super conservative and loves broadway musicals. My white suburbanite senior mother basically only listens to black jazz and R&B music.

To offer some sort of reasonable answer though, a lot people just do what other people are doing. I've never watched most of the popular tv shows like Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad or Sopranos. Most of the people I know watched these shows so they were able to bond as a community to reflect on a shared experience. Moreover, I do not understand the obsession with Donald Trump or how anyone could ever consider electing hims as president one time, let alone a second time.

The fact that you believe any woman is interested in a musician who could physically protect them is just bonkers. Believing "manly" is defined by a person's ability to be protective is also concerning. There's more important and fulfilling things to direct your attention towards in life. If you're unable to move on from this, I would suggest you may need to discuss this with a therapist to see if you have something troubling you.