Jump to content

@~thehung

Superherø
  • Content Count

    5,671
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    65

Everything posted by @~thehung

  1. @~thehung

    Bullying: The risk with 'accepting differences'.

    the real problem here is that kids arent allowed to carry guns if all children were packing, every bully would have to think twice before starting something
  2. @~thehung

    What Did You Watch Lately ?

    yah! and for anyone who is totally up to date, you might want to consider donating to a good cause: http://www.freewill-baptistchurch.com/
  3. @~thehung

    Smallest, most direction antenna

    this forum thread might be of use: Yagi Design to go with 433MHz tracker
  4. @~thehung

    What Did You Watch Lately ?

    ordinarily i would agree, in cases where heavy handed changes with non-artistic (political) motivation are imposed onto art. i would much prefer it be organic. but these concerns are non-existent for me with this character and this art, therefore i am inclined to think why not counteract the sausage-fest factor while giving an actress work and continuing the normalisation of roles where women are less passive than theyve traditionally been depicted. its not like there arent lamentable tropes of 80s TV that dont warrant a degree of revisionism. anything that pacifies devotees of the Bechdel test without ruining anything important is a win! :) its hard now to disentangle the Ghostbusters backlash from the reactionary fringe of women-haters, nevertheless it was a complete disaster because not only did the whole idea reek of stupid, the cringey failed execution of an ersatz male dynamic proceeded to truly deliver on the stupid. its a shame, because there were ways it could have been done that might have transcended the questionable premise, but jeez it was a low-percentage shot and boy did they miss.
  5. @~thehung

    What Did You Watch Lately ?

    meh, who cares if Higgins is a woman — yeah, she should probably be older but its nothing too jarring for the function of Higgins which is mostly about British old money, connections, and spy shit. if they ever have that rather slight woman taking down brawny bad guys with a few choice karate chops it will be no less ridiculous than when the puny John Hillerman did it haha. i think that trailer gets the tone right. its pitched as a glossy A-grade version of B-grade cheese, which is what even the best shows were back in the day, including the great Magnum P I. at least the lead actor isnt sporting the moustache, which indicates to me they arent even attempting to bottle what Selleck brought to the role (a credibility not on the page, realised through sheer force of charisma), which is a good thing. i expect this is will be similar to the Hawaii Five-O reboot, ie. straining plausibility to within updated limits while being anchored to the silliness of the original format — but hopefully a lot better.
  6. @~thehung

    Smallest, most direction antenna

    i guess my mental picture of how materials block RF is seriously flawed. could you elaborate though? just to be clear, i was envisioning many wafers stacked perpendicular to the tunnel direction, with a hole in each wafer (and all else encased). the idea being that the only path in is through all the holes, meaning that most off-axis paths would be presented with a flat piece of aluminium and reflected/absorbed between layers to nowhere. lets say this thing is 1m long. i was concerned about reflections at the rim of each hole, hence the thinness of the wafers and many layers. but are you are saying 70cm is a big enough wavelength to enter from, say, 90º (or 180º?) and diffract everywhere within the enclosure like crazy?
  7. @~thehung

    Smallest, most direction antenna

    hmm. i am curious how well blocking the signal from other directions would work. like, for example, putting the receiving antenna behind a hole in aluminium. but i imagine reflections would be an issue. maybe a narrow tunnel through a series of thin aluminium wafers ??? as for the signal — i am assuming this is omni — but will you be trying to detect the presence of the carrier only? if there is no 'signal' per se, periodic on-off keying might still be a good idea. unless youre in the middle of nowhere, there could be a lot of 433mhz noise about.
  8. @~thehung

    Darn Coalition surveilance laws. Why?!

    i did baulk at that, but decided it meant selective targeting of an individual's device to effectively bypass its native security vs compromised security being baked in and rolled out to everybody as part of the platform. which is to say that your confusion stems from the wrongheadedness of the bill itself. from the ZDNet article: Providers must not be required to "implement or build a systemic weakness, or a systemic vulnerability, into a form of electronic protection; or prevent a designated communications provider from rectifying a systemic weakness, or a systemic vulnerability, in a form of electronic protection"... ...providers can be required to install, maintain, test, or use software that a law-enforcement or intelligence agency has given them. Clearly, this would include installing government spyware on specific target devices. Providers can also be made to substitute a service they provide with a different service, either one of their own or another provider's. That could well include redirecting target devices to a different update server, so they receive the spyware as a legitimate vendor update. They're just examples. I'm sure you can think of more. But wouldn't such legislative and technical processes for installing unwanted software on selected target devices be a "systemic weakness"? from The Register article: In other words any ISP (whether or not it owns infrastructure); hardware vendors like Apple, Samsung, Huawei, Intel and Qualcomm; and anybody providing communications applications for games, social media or cloud services, would be subject to Oz government data orders. But it's not a secret backdoor. Law enforcement agencies would get the right to provide software or equipment that providers would have to install in their networks or systems; and providers would have to facilitate “access to devices or services.” But it's not a secret backdoor. Agencies would be able to ask the industry to help them develop their own “systems and capabilities”, and providers would have to tell agencies if they changed something in their systems. But it's not a secret backdoor. If a provider is in control of a service, agencies could require them to modify or substitute the service to give them access to a device or individual's data. But it's not a secret backdoor. And finally, providers would have to agree to stay quiet about agencies' covert operations, enforced by jail time and massive fines. But it's not a secret backdoor. [emphasis added]
  9. @~thehung

    What Did You Watch Lately ?

    as nice as that is, i still had to skip through it. i am over that bloody tram ride. ive replayed HL quite a few times over the years, and Black Mesa more recently. what would be great is a full scale playable remake of 1+blue shift+2+episodes, and while i am at it, Marc Laidlaw's unofficial episode 3 ending tacked on.
  10. +1 sandboxie ... if - IF - he has the discipline to separate his 'adult' web surfing from his ordinary surfing. then he just has a different icon for his sandboxed browser, and the sandbox contents can even be deleted automatically every time he exists the browser. if he can do that, then its by far the easiest and most effective solution imo. the issue, otherwise — ie. if he is intent on doing his banking and wanking with the same browser — its much more of a hassle to manage where he can and cant save files or attach a document etc from within and without the sandbox. its doable, but in this case a virtual machine might be better. btw, why is virus protection off the table? malware bytes....superantispyware....etc?
  11. @~thehung

    What Did You Watch Lately ?

    this guy's trump is among the best
  12. i made it very clear that i agree with you in many ways. there is a level of overweight in advertising pictures that i am personally uncomfortable with and think the public at large should be uncomfortable with because I think it promotes bad health. the taboo against expressing this sentiment reflects a curious and lamentable double standard. i was expecting this would be enough middle ground to continue the conversation without any suspicion i am out to trap you like some kind of "gotcha" journalist. your "rant is about large retail places promoting pics of oversized models". and since you just described the two women in my picture as "oversized to obese women" i now have a much better understanding of what you mean by 'oversized' and where you draw the line. so your rant applies to models like Ashley Graham. phew! that was a hard tooth to pull. and in the end, nobody died. i disagree with that. i think Ashley Graham and her ilk are of a healthy enough weight that i have no concerns about their pictures being in adverts. seeing women of her size and shape represented is a very positive thing imo. the reality is that the average dress size of women is above the majority of so called "plus-sized models". even before the global obesity epidemic of the last century women existed in all shapes and sizes. i think its unhealthy and psychologically damaging to feed the public unrealistic ideals of what a woman should look like. i am not out to demonise you, just contribute my own thoughts. so i have a different threshold for where i can get behind your rant. its up to you if you want to rebut my reasoning or not, but at least i am doing less guessing as to what we are talking about. the other tooth as yet un-pulled is the advertising itself. saying i havent seen what you are talking about is not snarky feigned passive-aggressive ignorance <-- a tactic i rarely if ever employ. asking for a skerrit of anything more to go on beyond 'news.com.au' and a 'major retailer' so i can bother to make a genuine attempt to see one of these ads with my own two eyes is me trying to relate. maybe it would alter my feelings somewhat? who knows. truth is i am insanely curious regardless.
  13. @~thehung

    Darn Coalition surveilance laws. Why?!

    ya saw that thanks to Cybes in the video thread recently. its pretty cut-and-dried as something not to be understood as benign here is another guardian article by Scott Ludlum: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/16/the-government-is-ratcheting-up-its-surveillance-powers-but-we-can-stop-this with links to these: https://www.zdnet.com/article/no-backdoors-for-australian-encryption-just-a-riddling-of-ratholes/ https://theconversation.com/the-devil-is-in-the-detail-of-government-bill-to-enable-access-to-communications-data-96909 https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/08/14/oz_encryption_backdoor/ https://www.buzzfeed.com/joshtaylor/encryption-legislation-released-by-angus-taylor?utm_term=.wp9r1eZzYQ#.hlD5PxK6kq
  14. "you did that" "he did that" ... blah blah blah how about discussing the topic?
  15. thats fine. but you did open a discussion for the people. we are looking at the finer details. like the definition of fat shaming for instance. i dont think any push back against 'uncritical acceptance of aspirational images featuring obesity' is necessarily fat shaming. or if it is, then not all fat shaming is bad. for me, its important that we target the condition rather the person. but i dont see how putting images of clothed fatties into a 'brown paper bag' category is not diminishing the dignity of people who want to visually peruse the size and cut of clothes just like anybody else. i am not sure if you are advocating for the removal of the images from clothing websites completely, or something more broad. for instance, if we were inundated with glamour photos on billboards i would probably be against that. then theres always the converse. the back of the Nutrigrain packet at the moment has lean mean sporty dudes riding bikes, surfing, and skateboarding. how about the sugar cartel, Kellogg's, changes the name to "Nutrigain - fatman food", and features various fatties playing xbox instead.
  16. @~thehung

    Odd food combos - how about yours?

    sounds fishy
  17. @~thehung

    Odd food combos - how about yours?

    article: Cynthia Nixon put lox on a cinnamon raisin bagel, and the Internet exploded lox = brined salmon. i didnt know that.
  18. @~thehung

    Odd food combos - how about yours?

    how about a banana meatlovers pizza, with raw mince? :D
  19. so, this is what you would prefer? you dont want to see fat models "attempting to feel okay" in clothes "that are suggested will hide the overweight body" because "to be overweight is a health hazard", as well as "not finding them aesthetically pleasing to the eye". there are some mixed messages here. you have resisted defining who these models are, and how fat is 'too fat'. i dont understand why. will you acknowledge there is a difference between being overweight and morbidly obese? compare the pair: https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1649570/ashley-graham-tess-holliday.jpg in the link above, the model on the left, is 'plus-sized model' Ashley Graham, who (further image searches will confirm) has been technically overweight for most of her modelling career. whereas the other one, is morbidly obese. in my estimation, this is a reasonably objective distinction. provided we are focused on the latter, here is where we agree: there is a double standard here. its a socially acceptable public sport to fret our brows over the 'bad messaging' of such things as heroin chic, and anorexic models, but there is no upper weight limit beyond which a similar level of unabashed discomfort is courted. squeamishness over this seems highly suspect to me. the distinctions are important though, because there is a clear difference between the natural litheness of, say, 60s model Twiggy (healthy, but probably technically underweight), and models whose morbidly underweight state of ill-health is actively rewarded, fetishised, and promoted. what worries me is that the situation may be exploitative at the upper end of the scale too. the morbidly obese models get paid, and have their egos fluffed. they are basically incentivised to maintain a chronic health condition, newly transformed into a lucrative niche commodity by the vendors and marketeers — whose negligent opportunism in this regard is roundly rewarded with pats on the back for their progressive stance on inclusivity. but here is where we may differ: firstly, i will simply own the fact that the other model in the link grosses me out. morbid obesity is ugly as shit. i would prefer not to see the second model or her ilk in any advertisement, ever. thankfully, i havent, and as such find it hard to empathise with your rant, nor do i have a sense of the supposed prevalence of this kind of advertising and whether it is doing much of anything, good or bad. secondly, there is the question of what i would change if i could in the interests of the public good. this is much harder to answer, which is where i think you are oversimplifying. you have done gorged yourself on simplification. youve really let yourself go. you touched on this yourself when you acknowledged that people of all sizes need clothes. but i would argue they are also human beings who deserve to attempt to feel okay and see each other "attempting to feel okay" — and this is also in the public good, and may offset some, or all, of the public disservice posed by uncritical acceptance of aspirational images featuring obesity. doesnt seem so clear cut to me at all, especially when the world is already ridiculously awash with promotions and advice for weight loss and an overbearing emphasis on the premium value our culture places on being lean. promoting aneroxia in that climate, even a little, seems far more dangerous than, a smattering of images that may give fat people a reprieve from continually beating themselves up for not being lean. and, it probably keeps the caterpillars off the streets.
  20. @~thehung

    What Did You Watch Lately ?

    read your description and played it unseen on purpose. that was mental. sounded 100% like a grown woman to me with obvious talent, but with a tone a little too 'pinched' to be a great voice — like guitar strings tuned slightly beyond what is ideal for their gauge, so in tune but thin on harmonics. the fact she is only 13, however, she could grow into having a truly great voice, if being on that show doesnt ruin everything first.
  21. @~thehung

    Bullying: The risk with 'accepting differences'.

    even as adults we marginalise others to enforce social norms. a lot of bullying can be understood as part of the cruel end of that spectrum. i am referring to the non-violent mob mentality variety more so than the (frequently physical) harassment perpetrated by the cliched 'kid from a broken home', although the latter can instigate the former. there have always been weird kids and weird interests. in truth, the majority of any group are 'weird'. but we are collectively held hostage to 'normality' in a Stockholm Syndrome-esque way. this is the social game, and woe betide the person who doesnt understand this instinctively. this is often more telling than weirdness of traits or interests alone. reading emotional cues, knowing the right and wrong time to interject, a sense of what behaviours gel with or sabotage the tone and flow of a conversation. but the kid who cant read the room and repeatedly won't take a hint is simply annoying. even more so if they push back against being frozen out with a complete lack of insight. once even the nicest kids have dwindling sympathy for you, good luck. might as well douse yourself in petrol. when the spark is lit, most are just glad its not them burning. everyone must suffer the game. ignorance of the game is no excuse for not playing. playing the game means garnering a healthy fear of ridicule. whosoever shall be found without one shall have one amply provided. winning the game means figuring out how to play without sacrificing honest expression of yourself at the alter of popularity.
  22. where is the line between normal and oversize? an example would help. which retailer was the one that sparked the thread? i block bullshit on most sites, so cant remember when i ever saw an ad on news.com.au.
  23. @~thehung

    Cyberpunk 2077 - 48 minutes preview!

    the level of nerdrage over this game being 1st person is astounding
  24. it really depends where you are drawing the line. theres plenty of fuller figured beautiful women not represented enough in aspirational marketing who would be overweight according to their BMI and yet are a picture of health. i guess i havent seen it? someone link me to one of these ads by a major retailer featuring rolls of fat and thunder thighs
×