"Any five-year old boy knows that if you put ten marbles into a tin can, you can only take ten marbles back out. Global bankers operate on the belief that they can put ten marbles (dollars) into a tin can (the world) and magically get 11 marbles back out. Thus, the bankers are dumber than five-year old boys! But unlike five-year old boys, the bankers will take your home, your business, and your nation when they don't get that eleventh marble! And after all that mayhem brought down on the occupants of the tin can there still will be no eleventh marble. It does not exist. It never did, and it never will. That is the ultimate doom of debt-based currency systems. In ages to come economists will look back at this failed experiment in debt-based currency and dump it into the same catagory of human stupidity as Tulipmania and the Great South Seas Company." -- Michael Rivero
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a proposed rule Wednesday that would require states to “transfer” foster children from families who do not support their “gender identity,” a copy of the rule showed.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf of Delaware blocked federal agents from investigating then-Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden as part of an investigation into Hunter Biden’s alleged violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), according to a new report.
Graphics processing units (GPUs) from Apple, AMD, Intel, Qualcomm, Arm, and Nvidia are vulnerable to a new attack that lets malicious websites read usernames, passwords, and other sensitive data displayed by other websites.
According to a research paper published on Tuesday, 26 September 2023, the cross-origin attack lets a malicious website from one domain read pixels displayed by other domains.
Malicious actors can then reconstruct the pixels to view words or images displayed by the target domain.
However, for the attack to work, a malicious page must be loaded into Chrome or Edge. Internal differences in the way Firefox and Safari work block the attack from stealing pixels.
A startling and honestly distressing view is beginning to receive serious consideration in both academic and popular discussions of climate change ethics. According to this view, having a child is a major contributor to climate change. The logical takeaway here is that everyone on Earth ought to consider having fewer children.
Although culturally controversial, the scientific half of this position is fairly well-established. Several years ago, scientists showed that having a child, especially for the world’s wealthy, is one of the worst things you can do for the environment. That data was recycled this past summer in a paper showing that none of the activities most likely to reduce individuals’ carbon footprints are widely discussed.
The second, moral aspect of the view — that perhaps we ought to have fewer children — is also being taken seriously in many circles. Indeed, I have writtenwidely on the topic myself.
But scientific evidence and moral theorizing aside, this is a complicated question with plenty of opponents. In what follows, I will address some of the challenges to this idea. Because while I recognize that this is an uncomfortable discussion, I believe that the seriousness of climate change justifies uncomfortable conversations. In this case, that means that we need to stop pretending the decision to have children doesn't have environmental and ethical consequences.
The argument that having a child adds to one’s carbon footprint depends on the view that each of us has a personal carbon ledger for which we are responsible. Furthermore, some amount of an offspring’s emissions count towards the parents’ ledger.