Profile

Cover photo
Satyr Icon
AboutPosts

Stream

Satyr Icon

Shared publicly  - 
5
1
謝予穎's profile photo

Satyr Icon

Shared publicly  - 
 
Does anybody know of an app that enables fm radio (not streaming) for Australia?

This is interesting. Im using an fm radio app. But it must be streaming thru the wifi (internet) as im listening to turkish fm stations without a problem. The artucle below states this phone has fm radio in it, but disabled to appease the streaming service providers And ad pushing apps perhaps.

The article does propose an app which switches on the phones fm radio, meaning no load on data if you're out of wifi range. But it is not available for australia.

So does anybody know of an app that enabkes the fm radio (not streaming) for Australia?

I dont care if i cant receive Turkey or even Melbourne. I just want fm radio that doesnt suck data.

Also, anybody know if these phones have free to air tv chips?

Ht +Sultan Saini
2
1
Satyr Icon's profile photo謝予穎's profile photo
13 comments
 
see what i mean? you're a genius!

Satyr Icon

Shared publicly  - 
 
Greedy fucking fraudelent banks. And the libertards want no government regulation.

"Last year, Credit Suisse agreed to pay U.S. regulators $885 million for what government lawyers said were shoddy practices that helped trigger the housing and financial crisis in 2008."

"Bank of America agreed to pay $16 billion in the same settlement."
 
And you conservatives think we should put our trust in corporations?
For more than a decade after her husband died, Laura Coleman Biggs paid her mortgage to a Bank of America subsidiary. She was never told, even as she was weeks from losing her home, that her husband had actually protected her against foreclosure.
9 comments on original post
4
1
Pam Adger's profile photo謝予穎's profile photo
 
Completely outrageous. 

Satyr Icon

Shared publicly  - 
 
Who has the power?


h/t +Alex Law 
 
A warning: This is going to be an article about sex, sex work, and feminism, but it's not a "101" type of issue. It's instead about the subtle ways in which arguments which seem reasonable can be subtly, but dangerously, wrong.

This comic gives a straightforward way to think about the question of whether someone is being "sexually empowered" or "objectified." It explains the two as a duality, with one being good and the other bad, and the difference is all about power and consent.

The problem with this comic is that it's both right and wrong. The right part of it is fairly obvious, but the wrong part is subtle and can be insidious. It has to do with the ways in which the comic talks about how consent can be deficient, influenced by things like financial need. It suggests (correctly) that any consent can ultimately be deficient -- but it focuses this on the consent of the "provider," i.e. the model or sex worker or simply a person Dressed In A Certain Way. In doing so, it creates an insidious implication that the consent of anyone doing this is more deficient than other people's consent. That's a "magic wand" sort of argument that lets people argue that any claim of empowerment is actually false, an argument which has very nasty real-world consequences.

One easy way to see the problem is to notice that the same argument this author applies to sex work applies to anything else. Consider this quote:

"Many of those who enter the sex industry as a provider may not be entirely doing so because they want to. There are a number of factors, including poverty level, race, and assigned sex. Providers of commercial sex often face enormous discrimination and criminalization, which also puts power in the hands of others besides the providers themselves."

That's a great argument for why all the sex workers are actually being trafficked (a common argument used for increased criminalization of their customers, incidentally, which ends up having most of the same net effects on sex workers as criminalizing them), while coming with a wonderful out to explain away any sex worker who disagrees: "they're just privileged enough that it doesn't happen to them." But repeat that same sentence while talking about, say, agricultural laborers:

"Many of those who work in tomato fields may not be entirely doing so because they want to. There are a number of factors, including poverty level, race, and assigned sex. Migrant laborers often face enormous discrimination and criminalization, which also puts power in the hands of others besides the providers themselves."

This statement is no less true. In fact, it's true of nearly any kind of work, and that's the key to what's wrong here: it singles out sex as being somehow different, a situation in which consent is always potentially deficient. 


This cartoon doesn't, to its credit, take its arguments and actually pull them to that extreme. It sets up the arguments which can be used to argue that all empowerment is really objectification, and arguments which are routinely used by others to do that, but it doesn't make the claim itself. However, by framing the discussion this way, it sets that up.


The actual flaw is in the dichotomy it suggests between "empowerment" (which is good) and "objectification" (which is bad). You should be suspicious from the first frame, which talks about the power of the "looking" person and the "looked at" person, because power isn't a single axis -- which is exactly what the comic shows later on, as it talks about financial power, cultural power, sexual desire, and so on. 

In any real situation, each side will have some power, and the tradeoffs individuals are making are going to be complex. The sex worker may need the money, but he could also be working construction. His client seems to have the power in the relationship, but any business provider knows that the customer's power isn't actually absolute.

To be clear, I'm not saying that there is always a balance: power imbalances are real, and they absolutely occur in sex work, just like they occur in every other aspect of life. And criminalization and shaming of sex workers make those power imbalances much worse: in fact, if you wanted to analyze the real consequences of US laws on sex work, you could summarize them as being optimized to maximize the vulnerability of sex workers, in favor of anyone who has the power to get them arrested, exposed, and so on.

Which is to say, there's a real power imbalance here, but it has nothing to do with the intrinsics of sex or sex work, or even with deep things like culture: it's something society has deliberately chosen to create.


So what's a more accurate way of describing this? It's to realize that "empowerment" and "objectification" aren't opposites, but things which happen at the same time. Empowerment is about a person having agency and control over their life; objectification is about a person being viewed not as an independent subject, but as the object of a sentence, a means to someone else's ends.

The model may be empowering herself, acquiring a source of income that she can control and developing her own independent sexuality; at the same time, the man watching her may be entirely in his own world, collecting pictures of women and fantasizing absolute control over them, while shaming the women in his life for not looking like them. Which of these people is empowered? Which is objectified? 

The answer is that it's both. This means that we don't get any nice, simple lessons like "porn is good!" or "porn is bad!" which we can use to have rallies and change laws and so on. Instead, we get the real complexities of human life.


There are definitely useful calls to action here, but they're not the simple ones. If you want to do something useful:

* The structural power imbalances which affect workers everywhere are real and significant dangers to our society. Sex work is work: most of the problems are the same. The problems which create deficiencies in consent have huge social and economic costs; cf recent studies like
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2012/03/22/11234/the-costly-business-of-discrimination/
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/is-ending-segregation-the-key-to-ending-poverty/385002/

* There are many structural problems specific to sex work. Laws which criminalize it cut sex workers off from legal recourse altogether. Laws which treat sex work as a "scarlet letter" -- e.g., putting professionals at risk of losing their children to CPS if their employment becomes known -- are even worse. Policies which shame it -- e.g., refusals of payment processors to touch anything remotely related to sex -- again force sex workers into situations where they're dependent on unethical side providers. Political organizations such as RedUP (http://redumbrellaproject.org/) and SWOP (http://www.swopusa.org/) are actively working to fix these issues. Importantly, these are organizations of the actual people involved, not of people coming in to "rescue" them from their lives without actually asking if that's what anyone wants; organizations like that need our support.

(Disclosure: I am a donor to, and supporter of, both of these groups, and encourage others to do so as well)

* And objectification, while not directly tied to this, is something you can directly change about your own life. See https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/TbCgDWPkBGW for more on that.

Thanks to +Carrie Canup for the link.
There's a long-standing debate in feminism about sexual empowerment: How do we know when someone is being sexually liberated versus being sexually objectified, since they sometimes can look similar from the outside? Well, the answer is simpler than you think: The difference is in who has the po
161 comments on original post
6
3
Sultan Saini's profile photo謝予穎's profile photo

Satyr Icon

Shared publicly  - 
 
Holy Shit I'm published! Now what!!?

When I was doing my masters I was preparing a paper for publication. My first. But my supervisor got it reviewed by the projects sponsors. The sponsors practically gutted the paper and I commenced a long drawn out fight against my supervisor and ultimately the university. I won, but it was a pyrrhic victory. I dropped out after that.

Later at one of the places I was employed at I wrote the occasional technical report. Had to as part of work. I was told they'd never be published as they had commercial in confidence IP. So I didn't expect them to be.

But just recently I did a search for my name, as you would, well actually it started off because of a thread on +Pam Adger's post, I went looking for pics of my dick (forgotten what it looks like), but instead found an article under my name. I can't read the article but from the title and description it is one that I wrote. And it's not that other bigger article as this one didn't have any co-authors.

Hmm,... maybe I should write more, or do some more science or something?

Naw! Sleep deprivation and the cold in my chest/head is making me think silly thoughts.
12
1
Suzanne Catty's profile photoPam Adger's profile photoSatyr Icon's profile photo謝予穎's profile photo
7 comments
 
*exhales*

Satyr Icon

Shared publicly  - 
 
WARNING: DIRTY JOKE!
 
snort
This Woman Couldn't Take Her Eyes Off This Handsome Man. But Then He Said This. Follow @Posts_For_All. 7 hours ago. Stories · Add comment · smart woman takes on guy · Place your ad here · Loading... cheating wife funny joke Previous postHis Girlfriend Made Him Jump Out The Window.
View original post
6
1
Satyr Icon's profile photoClint Fudge's profile photo謝予穎's profile photo
3 comments
 
+Satyr Icon as a matter of fact...I do.

Satyr Icon

Shared publicly  - 
 
Great extension!

Pity my vacuum cleaner doesn't extend like this. I have to remove the head and throw it at the dust bunnies!
 
Ok, maybe she is not real smart, but she does believe in being thorough. 
4 comments on original post
6
1
Satyr Icon's profile photoClint Fudge's profile photoMichael John Battista's profile photo謝予穎's profile photo
4 comments
 
catch those spiders 

Satyr Icon

Shared publicly  - 
 
face --> keyboard!

h/t +Keith Wilson 
 
Laugh or Cry?
"She's now telling a story of a condom box in which EVERY SINGLE CONDOM HAD A HOLE."
4 comments on original post
6
Nesbi Maret's profile photoSatyr Icon's profile photo
2 comments
 
+Nesbi Maret that was my thought. And they spent $1.3 Billion on it.

Satyr Icon

Shared publicly  - 
3
1
謝予穎's profile photo

Satyr Icon

Shared publicly  - 
 
Looks like it's going to be an interesting fight!

CPS is probably doing what it is obligated to do by act and regulation. And the police have to follow orders of a government department. Well I think they do, but I ain't a lawyer.

There's a few busybodies reporting the children. And I'm siding with the free-range parents.

I think it's protectionism gone crazy.

Caveat: I ain't a parent.
 
Lawyers for the Meitivs allege that county officials kept the parents from their children for six hours.
9 comments on original post
3
2
Nesbi Maret's profile photoChris Blackmore (The Walrus)'s profile photo謝予穎's profile photoNathan V's profile photo
2 comments
 
I don't know what the world is coming to. Sixty years ago, I used to walk a mile or so to school, on my own until my little brother was old enough to come with me. He used to go exploring in the fields near our house, on his own. As a result of his explorations, he became a famous botanist. In case you think it was safer back then, the Moors Murderers were operating fairly near us at the time. 

Satyr Icon

Shared publicly  - 
 
When are we going to see the first DRONE WARS?

I'm not saying I want wars. But that I'm now actually expecting them. I dread all wars.

I say that because ...

Well Amazon just got approval by US regulator to deliver items by drone. So did AGI, American General Insurance.

I'm not sure exactly what AGI do, but what else would they want to do with drones but to spy on folks who are making bogus insurance claims? :)

Ok, so it wont be long before some private person will onject to all these approved drones (Amazon, your insurer, your police, secret police, ...) and launch their drone to take these drones down. They don't have to stay up long. Just long enough to bring the other drone down, and then disappear again. Kinda like a vigilante drone.

Next phase would be civillian drones attacking corporate or even government drones. Groups or swarms of them.

And after that it will be battle of features, capabilities and weapons. Drone technology will leap in bounds as both corps and private individuals drive demand for better mil capability drones. Fire will rain down from the skies! Well, probably not as dramatic as that.

Militaries will begin to value the lives of their infantry and send in drones instead. The opponent will meet them in the skies with their own swarms.

Meanwhile kids will try and hack them in flight, perhaps from the ground, or with a drone flying nearby.

Disruptive technology alright.

Also I can't afford my own drone yet.

h/t +謝予穎 
 
Awesome !
A swarm of 56 drones controlled by a mobile application

#geekandbuzz   #drones   #mobileapp   #control   #gif  
27 comments on original post
10
1
Satyr Icon's profile photo謝予穎's profile photoNora Qudus's profile photo
5 comments
 
may be fake!
Story
Tagline
A breif description of you.