[x]Blackmoor Vituperative

Friday, 2016-01-08

Expanding Ubuntu LVM in VCenter

Filed under: Linux — bblackmoor @ 16:40

These are notes for my own benefit, but I am sharing them publicly in case someone else might find them useful. The paths and volume names below are specific to my own situation, of course: yours will probably be different.

  • In VCenter, add an ISO for GParted to the data store.
  • Set the VM to boot to the bios.
  • Set the bios to boot from the CD drive.
  • Load the ISO in the CD drive of the VM.
  • In gparted, deactivate the partitions so they can be resized.
  • In gparted, expand the LVM partitions to use the additional 100 GB of file space.
  • Shut down the VM and remove the ISO from the VM.
  • Start up the VM, and in Ubuntu, run these commands:
  • sudo lvextend /dev/mapper/template-root /dev/sda5
  • sudo resize2fs /dev/mapper/template-root
  • Then reboot the VM one more time.

Monday, 2015-12-28

Star Wars: The Marketing Awakens

Filed under: Movies — bblackmoor @ 17:31
Kylo Ren Premier Edition Helmet Replica

I don’t mind that the vast majority of Star Wars’ sequels and spin-offs have been declared no longer valid by Disney (what nerds call “canon” — or “cannon”, if they are exceptionally illiterate). I only wish Disney had taken the additional step of declaring it all no longer canon, and started over from scratch. The Force Awakens would have been vastly improved if it had not been dragging along the baggage of the last 40 years. Every time they trundled out the cast from the 1977 movie (including the robots), the film ground to a cringe-inducing halt. What’s more, the most egregious plot holes were directly the result of shoehorning those characters into the story.

Ah, well. The film appears to have served its purpose, regardless. It’s the most successful toy commercial ever made.

Monday, 2015-12-21

Promote what you love instead of bashing what you hate

Filed under: Comics,Movies,Philosophy,Television — bblackmoor @ 10:34

Or to put it another way: “Eschew petty criticisms.”

I posted a comment on a YouTube video this morning, “helpfully” pointing out that the alien in Alien (and sequels) is a xenomorph, not the xenomorph — that any extraterrestrial encountered in that film’s universe is “a xenomorph”. It occurred to me that this is the modern version of telling people that Frankenstein is the scientist, and not the monster.

And then it occurred to me how incredibly annoying it is to be around someone who talks like this, pointing out petty errors or inconsistencies in movies, comics, or TV shows. I don’t care if Nightcrawler has face tattoos in the comicbooks. I don’t care if The Purple Man looked or acted anything like David Tennant in the comicbooks. I don’t care if Gal Godot’s Wonder Woman costume looks like the one in the comics.

And even if I do care a little, listening to that sort of thing annoys the hell out of me. So I am going to try, from now on, to not be someone who says that sort of thing. If I like a TV show or a movie, I will say that I like it, and I’ll say what I like about it. Other than that, I’m going to try to keep my mouth shut.

Promote what you love instead of bashing what you hate

Firefox 43 add-ons

Filed under: Software,The Internet — bblackmoor @ 09:28

Here is what I am using now in Firefox:

Thursday, 2015-12-10

In the future

Filed under: Poetry — bblackmoor @ 10:53

In the future, everyone will be poor except the rich
In the future, everyone will have guns except the poor
In the future, everyone will be the color of cafe-au-lait
In the future, everyone will be beautiful
In the future, everyone will be obese
In the future, everyone will think they’re smart
In the future, everyone will be stupid
In the future, everyone will be happy
In the future, everyone will be angry
In the future, everyone will be sad

Tuesday, 2015-12-08

Republican Hitler

Filed under: History,Politics,Society — bblackmoor @ 09:14

Republican Hitler

Replace the word “Muslims” with “Jews” and then ask yourself “Do I sound like a fucking Nazi?”

Here’s a hint: if you have to make excuses for it (“I’m not racist! Islam is not a race!”), then the answer is yes, you do sound like a fucking Nazi. So either change what you are saying, or be prepared for all of your descendants to be embarrassed to be related to you because you were an ignorant bigot.

Friday, 2015-11-27

What’s real and what’s not

Filed under: Science,Society — bblackmoor @ 17:42

futility_demotivational

A brief reminder of what’s real and what’s not.

  1. Danger posed to us by immigrants: not real.
  2. Immigrants fleeing imminent death: real.
  3. Danger posed to us by pistol-packing soccer moms in the cereal aisle at Wal-Mart: not real.
  4. Being 75% more likely to be killed by a friend or family member than by a stranger: real.
  5. Ghosts, angels, gods, demons, devils, ancient astronauts, bigfoot, flying saucers, homeopathic “medicine”, and cow-mutilating aliens: not real.
  6. Being more likely to die of heart disease, cancer, or chronic lower respiratory disease than from all other causes of death combined: real.
  7. Vaccines causing autism: not real.
  8. Measles, mumps, and whooping cough making a comeback because parents decide not to vaccinate their children: real.
  9. Conspiracy among scientists to promote “the global warming scam”: not real.
  10. Global temperatures increasing faster than was predicted 20 years ago: real.

Wednesday, 2015-11-25

The Threat Is Already Inside

Filed under: Politics,Society — bblackmoor @ 17:38

From https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/20/the-threat-is-already-inside-uncomfortable-truths-terrorism-isis/

By now, the script is familiar: Terrorists attack a Western target, and politicians compete to offer stunned and condemnatory adjectives. British, Chinese, and Japanese leaders thus proclaimed themselves “shocked” by the Paris attacks, which were described variously as “outrageous” and “horrific” by U.S. President Barack Obama; “terrible” and “cowardly” by French President François Hollande; “barbaric” by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi; “despicable” by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon; and “heinous, evil, vile” by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who possesses a superior thesaurus.

The Paris attacks were all these things. One thing they were not, however, was surprising.

Occasional terrorist attacks in the West are virtually inevitable, and odds are, we’ll see more attacks in the coming decades, not fewer. If we want to reduce the long-term risk of terrorism — and reduce its ability to twist Western societies into unrecognizable caricatures of themselves — we need to stop viewing terrorism as shocking and aberrational, and instead recognize it as an ongoing problem to be managed, rather than “defeated.”

Politicians don’t like to say any of this. But we’re not politicians, so let’s look at 10 painful truths.

No. 1: We can’t keep the bad guys out.

Borders are permeable. The United States has more than 95,000 miles of shoreline. Greece has 6,000 islands and some 10,000 miles of coastline. You can walk from Iraq and Syria into Turkey and from Turkey into Bulgaria. Eight-hundred million people fly into U.S. airports each year, and 1.7 billion people fly into Europe’s airports. No wall can be long enough or high enough to keep out the truly desperate or determined, and there aren’t enough guards in the world to monitor every inch of coastline or border.

No. 2: Besides, the threat is already inside.

The 2005 terrorist attacks in London were carried out by British citizens, the Boston Marathon attack was perpetrated by a U.S. citizen and a U.S. permanent resident, and the Paris attacks appear to have been carried out mainly by French citizens. Every country on earth has its angry young men, and the Internet offers a dozen convenient ideologies to justify every kind of resentment. Adding more border guards — or keeping out refugees fleeing war and misery, as too many members of Congress seem eager to do — won’t help when the threat is already inside.

No. 3: More surveillance won’t get rid of terrorism, either.

As Edward Snowden’s 2013 leaks made clear, the United States is already surveilling the heck out of the entire planet and so are half the governments in Europe. The trouble is, the more data you collect — the more satellite imagery and drone footage and emails and phone calls and texts you monitor — the harder it gets to separate the signal from the noise. The U.S. National Security Agency intercepts billions of communications each day, according to a Washington Post investigation, but despite sophisticated computer programs designed to detect “suspicious” activity, not everything can be analyzed — and a lot of time gets wasted on false positives.

Sometimes the authorities get lucky, and stumble on a plot before it can be carried out. Data from electronic intercepts, surveillance cameras, and the like often ends up being most useful after an attack, however: Once the authorities know who they’re looking for, they can backtrack to gain a better understanding of how an attack came about, and they can sometimes link attackers to previously unknown plotters. When attacks are thwarted before they can be carried out, it’s usually as a result of the same factors that keep ordinary crime rates from going through the roof: good investigative work, vigilant communities, and bad guys who often make dumb mistakes.

No. 4: Defeating the Islamic State won’t make terrorism go away.

Don’t kid yourself. The Islamic State isn’t even the most lethal terrorist group operating today: Nigeria’s Boko Haram wins that title. Regardless, before there was the Islamic State, there was al Qaeda, which brought us 9/11 and the Madrid and London bombings; before al Qaeda there was Hezbollah and Hamas; and before Hamas there was the Abu Nidal group, Black September and various other PLO factions. Europe saw more terrorist attacks — and more deaths from terrorist attacks — in the 1970s and 1980s than it has seen since 9/11. The Islamic State may now be the flavor du jour for the world’s angry young men, but if every single Islamic State fighter in Syria and Iraq is obliterated, the Middle East will still seethe — and so will the banlieues of Paris.

And no, it’s not just Islam. Right-wing extremists in the United States still kill more people than jihadis. The 2011 attack in Norway — which left 77 people dead — was carried out by a single far-right terrorist, Anders Behring Breivik. Since 2006, more than half of all deaths in terrorist attacks in the West have been caused by non-Islamist “lone-wolf” attackers, most motivated by right-wing extremism or separatist sentiments. You can’t even count on Buddhists to be peaceful: On Oct. 23, 2012, for instance, Buddhists militants attacked the Burmese village of Yan Thei and massacred more than 70 people, including 28 children, most of whom were hacked to death.

No. 5: Terrorism still remains a relatively minor threat, statistically speaking.

That’s no consolation to the victims or their loved ones, but it might offer some solace to the rest of us. Those scary statistics you sometimes see about the alleged vast increase in global terrorism include attacks occurring in regions wracked by ongoing armed conflicts, such as Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, and Afghanistan. According to the 2015 Global Terrorism Index, between 2000 and 2014, only 2.6 percent of victims of terrorism lived in Western countries. Stay away from active war zones, and the average American is far more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist. And gun violence in the United States? I won’t even go there.

No matter how you look at it, those of us who live in the West have it pretty easy. Gun violence in the United States notwithstanding, we live longer, we’re less likely to die of preventable disease, and we’re far less likely to die violently than those in non-Western countries. If you live in Iraq, Libya, or Syria — or Nigeria, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Honduras, or South Sudan — violent death is a constant possibility. If you live in Paris or Boston or Ottawa, relax.

No. 6: But don’t relax too much, because things will probably get worse before they get better.

From a historical perspective, the relative safety and security currently enjoyed by those in the Western world is anomalous. Until about 1850, life expectancy at birth hovered around 40 years in most of Europe; today, it’s over 80. The history of the West is every bit as violent as the modern Middle East, with brief periods of relative peace punctuated by periods of bloody conflict.

Don’t count on this period of relative Western safety continuing. Some day, the political, ethnic, and religious turmoil roiling the Middle East may end, but that day probably won’t be soon — and probably won’t be hastened by a more aggressive Western military campaign against the Islamic State.

If anything, the world is likely to see an uptick in violent conflict in the coming decades, and the West is unlikely to be fully spared. The Syrian refugee crisis has given Europe a taste of what can happen when substantial populations flee one region and try to settle in another. European border controls, refugee assistance systems and humanitarian instincts were quickly swamped by the sudden influx of more than 750,000 refugees, and though most of those refugees were exactly who they said they were, a handful were not. Imagine what will happen a few decades down the road, as climate change fuels new conflicts over resources and vast populations move in search of a better life. One recent student suggests that portions of the Middle East will become literally too hot for human habitation by century’s end. What then?

No. 7: Meanwhile, poorly planned Western actions can make things still worse.

So in the wake of the Paris attacks, the fat, happy, over-privileged West wants to turn away the hundreds of thousands of desperate Muslim families seeking shelter and peace, just because a tiny fraction of those refugees might be militants? Islamic militants couldn’t ask for a better recruiting gift.

The same goes for stepping up military action against the Islamic State. If we respond to the Paris attacks by sending a large number of ground combat troops into Syria and Iraq, we once again become foreign occupiers — and big fat targets. If we respond by bombing every Islamic State target we can find, odds are high we’ll end up bombing some people we never wanted or intended to bomb, and this won’t help us make new friends. Also, if we take out the Islamic State in Syria, we may just end up helping Syria’s other extremist rebels — or helping embattled Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, though it was Assad and other brutal regional leaders whose actions helped inspire and strengthen the Islamic State in the first place. Besides, what happens next in Syria, do we get rid of the Islamic State, or Assad? As Iraq should remind us, nature abhors a vacuum.

Military force can play a role in preventing and responding to terrorist attacks, but when we don’t know who to target and we don’t fully understand the regional dynamics, that role should be small.

No. 8: Terrorism is a problem to be managed.

I can’t believe it’s still necessary to repeat this, but … no, Fox News, we can’t “win” a “war” against terrorism or terror or terrorists any more than we can “win” a war on crime or drugs or poverty. But though we can’t eliminate all risk of terrorism, we can adopt sensible policies to reduce the risk and damage caused by terrorist attacks. We can fund moderate Muslim organizations that offer alternatives to extremist interpretations of Islam, for instance, increase law enforcement outreach in communities that are targeted by terrorist recruiters, and look for ways to increase community incentives to report suspicious activity — perhaps by exploring rehabilitation approaches to dealing with misguided teens who are attracted by violent ideologies but haven’t yet taken decisive steps to harm anyone. We can also look for reasonable ways to give additional tools to law enforcement officials, as long as we also add safeguards to prevent abuses. If we’re creative in our approaches, we can find ways to make terrorist attacks a little harder to carry out successfully, and make successful attacks less rewarding to those who carry them out.

No. 9: To do this, however, we need to move beyond the political posturing that characterizes most public debates about counterterrorism, and instead speak honestly about the costs and benefits of different approaches.

We can throw more border guards and bombs and police and TSA and NSA agents at the problem of terrorism, and some or all of these things may well buy down short-term risk, reducing the odds that terrorists will engage in successful attacks. But each of these approaches has costs, too, some financial and some human and political. More police might mean more thwarted terrorist plots, but ham-handed policing might mean more potential recruits for the Islamic State or its successor. More police will certainly mean higher public safety budgets, which, in a world of finite resources, means less money for something else. The same is true for airport security, NSA programs and airstrikes: If implemented poorly, they can cause a backlash, and even if implemented thoughtfully, they cost money and take resources away from something else.

Fourteen years after 9/11, we still have astonishingly little empirical evidence about which counterterrorism techniques are effective and which aren’t. In large part, this is because governments haven’t made it a priority to fund or conduct evidence-based counterterrorism research. This needs to change.

We need to be hard-headed and unsentimental about this, just as we’re hardheaded about the prevention of crime, disease, car accidents, and a thousand other more run of the mill risks. How much do we think more police (or border guards or NSA programs or bombs) will make a difference, and at what point will we see diminishing marginal returns? At what point do we say: Yes, we could reduce the risk of successful terrorist attacks by another 5 percent if we added five thousand more border guards, but the costs are just too high? Or even: We could reduce the risk by 85 percent if we turn France or the United States into police states, but we’d rather accept the added short-term risk than abandon the values that make our countries what they are?

No. 10: We need to stop rewarding terrorism.

We can change the cost-benefit calculus for would-be terrorists by reducing terrorism’s benefits as well as by reducing its costs. Terrorism is used by states and non-state actors alike both because its relatively cheap and easy, and because it works. From al Qaeda’s perspective, the 9/11 attacks were a spectacular success. The attacks cost the United States billions of dollars: We closed stock exchanges, halted air travel, and started expensive and inconclusive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. From the Islamic State’s perspective, the Paris attacks are working, too: The anti-refugee backlash will aid Islamic State recruiting, and tourism is taking a hit even here in the United States, where fear alone has led schools to cancel class trips to Washington. The more the West flails around with talk of bombs and border guards and police, the happier the Islamic State becomes.

The cheapest and easiest way to reduce the benefits of terrorism is to stop overreacting. That 129 people were killed in the Paris attacks is a terrible tragedy and a vicious crime, but 16,000 people in the United States are murdered each year in “ordinary” homicides, 30,000 die in accidental falls, 34,000 die in car crashes, and 39,000 die of accidental poisoning. We should mourn each and every death, and we should take all reasonable steps to prevent more deaths from occurring and punish those responsible for intentionally inflicting harm.

But we need to stop viewing terrorism as unique and aberrational. The more we panic and posture and overreact, the more terrorism we’ll get.

(from https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/20/the-threat-is-already-inside-uncomfortable-truths-terrorism-isis/)

About Rosa Brooks

Rosa Brooks is a law professor at Georgetown University and a Schwartz senior fellow at the New America Foundation. She served as a counselor to the U.S. defense undersecretary for policy from 2009 to 2011 and previously served as a senior advisor at the U.S. State Department.

Friday, 2015-11-20

Superman says, “Lend a friendly hand!”

Filed under: Comics,Society — bblackmoor @ 13:17

Superman reminds some kids how Americans are supposed to act.

Superman reminds some kids how Americans are supposed to act.

A congressman’s comments regarding refugees

Filed under: Politics,Society — bblackmoor @ 09:34

Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.

Congressman (R): “Our veterans should come first! As long as one veteran is sick, homeless, or hungry, it would be an affront to them to take in any refugees! That’s why I voted to keep them out.”

Interviewer: “So you are a strong supporter of veterans?”

Congressman (R): “What? Fuck no! Those leeches can starve for all I care. They should have died in the sand like they were supposed to. I have voted five times to defund them. You’d think they’d take the hint.”

Interviewer: “So your argument for not helping refugees is because we don’t help veterans enough, and we don’t help veterans enough because of … you. So … you are the reason you don’t want to help refugees…?”

Congressman (R): “Eh. Whatever keeps my constituents happy.”

Interviewer: “So voters want –”

Congressman (R): “What? Fuck no! Those morons will vote for a turd if you call it a Big Mac. I’m talking about my superpac. Great buncha guys. We’re going to Cabo next weekend. You should come. We’re getting some Ukrainian hookers. Those girls will do anything. Well, they have to. (laughs)

« Previous PageNext Page »