Good thing we solved lipid disorders with Olean, Betamax gave us all superior home video, and you can monetize your HN comments with NFTs or else I wouldn't have any money to post!
The article is poorly written. "Scammers are using cellphone's Bluetooth option to hack the pump - and get it for free." is all the detail you get. My cellphone's Bluetooth doesn't have that option.
This sentence doesn't know if it's in the local paper or at a slam poetry reading:
"Paying at the pump is for chumps - when you can get gas for free - and illegal, but it didn’t stop a Detroit man from stealing almost 800 gallons of gas at the Shell at Eight Mile and Wyoming."
If you're on android, there's a bunch of bluetooth-serial apps that let you send more or less whatever raw data you want.
On iOS, there's nrf connect. Which is slightly more limited, but can still do BLE. I think there's other bluetooth-serial apps for iphones, but apple has a stick up their butt about bluetooth-classic not working super good unless the other device has a "made for i" chip/cert in it.
If either of these don't work well enough, ESP32s can be had for <$5 and can act as a bridge between your device and whatever you want to exploit.
> On iOS, there's nrf connect. Which is slightly more limited, but can still do BLE. I think there's other bluetooth-serial apps for iphones, but apple has a stick up their butt about bluetooth-classic not working super good unless the other device has a "made for i" chip/cert in it.
Is BLE why "modern" iphones don't have issues with android/3rd party devices/accessories? I remember a long time ago when an iPhone meant you could only share bluetooth with other Apple devices. My iPhone today doesn't seem to be like that.
Kinda. From reading the docs, apple really didn't want the battery drain and software jank that came with classic bluetooth. Pretty sure bluetooth audio has been exempt most of the time though.
You have to enable the DevTools, but that requires a $99 annual fee. If you can't afford gas, it's not likely you can afford that fee too. So it's kind of a perfect catch-22
Why would you have to enable devtools? Also, with just an unpaid icloud account, you can build, sign, and install apps to devices with an expiry time of one week.
It's better to just return it to a different gas station. Selling gas is more difficult than you might think because of rampant dilution/adulteration in the secondary market. Can't just go door to door saying "Hey I bought too much gas" or "My car only takes 93 octane" -- nobody trusts anyone anymore.
When you make a return without a receipt you generally just get store credit instead of cash. If you don't need some chips and tallboys, you can typically sell the credit to someone behind the station for .3 to .4 of the face value. That isn't great but since the gaming machines only take cash its a solid way to get liquid.
Just act normal and ask for the manager. Like the parent comment noted "probably very much worth the small investment in tools." Be sure to get one of the fancy black rubber hoses instead of the green ones so things look more professional.
They have the right to privacy when they are following the law. On the other hand, if police enforcement have a legal warrant to read internal documents about how you run your business, to prevent employees from being exploited, they absolute should get access to it.
I understand having a process in place to be able to hide data from criminals stealing your data, that's not a problem. The problem becomes when companies start to hide data from legal requests, which is what Uber is in the hot for here.
That means everyone should just stop complying to lawful warrants? Or that laws in general don't work? Or that you'd rather have companies maintaining laws? We can pick & chose what laws to follow?
I'm not sure I understand the reasoning nor conclusion of your comment.
People have rights because they are humans. Companies aren’t, and as such don’t inherently deserve any rights. They are granted some rights where it’s beneficial to the society, or because of corruption (often legalized as lobbying).
The company couldn't care less about privacy. As it is not human it has no feelings. Rather it is people – real live humans – who called for said "kill switch". It is they who seek privacy, not the company.
Windows 10, too. I think it didn't work in Windows 7, though. If my memory is correct, that means that it's not a super-new feature, but still relatively newish.
I had a LG Gram. Awesome. So light, had latest gen CPU when Apple didnt. All the ports that Apple didn’t have. Linux worked too. The only reason i went back to Apple is the trackpad. If Linux sorts that out, back to LG Gram.
The reasoning is well established at this point. It was started by the Nixon administration to reduce the amount of left and left-leaning voters, particularly black Americans.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
— John Ehrlichman, to Dan Baum for Harper's Magazine in 1994, about President Richard Nixon's war on drugs, declared in 1971.
I'm about as anti War on Drugs as it's possible to get, but agree with those who consider that quote to be highly suspect.
Ehrlichman supposedly said it in a private interview with Baum, and there was no public record of it for 22 years after it was said, and 17 years after Ehrlichman died.
It's very rare to hear such mea culpas from powerful, politically adept figures that cast their subjects in such a negative light. When they speak of their actions at all they tend to talk of them with plenty of room for interpretation and plausible deniability -- especially if they're lawyers, as Ehrlichman was.
So as much as I believe that the War on Drugs was in fact in great part a racist war and one greatly based on suppression of dissent and the 60's and 70's counterculture, I very much doubt that Ehrlichman ever confessed.
> NIXON: [...] Let's look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn, they root 'em out. They don't let 'em around at all. I don't know what they do with them. Look at this country. You think the Russians allow dope? Homosexuality, dope, immorality, are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and left-wingers are clinging to one another. They're trying to destroy us. I know Moynihan will disagree with this, [Attorney General John] Mitchell will, and Garment will. But, goddamn, we have to stand up to this.
That quote doesn't really support the idea that "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities." Instead, it supports the idea that Nixon thought drugs undermined society and stamping out drug use was valuable for its own sake.
>"Homosexuality, dope, immorality, are the enemies of strong societies."
Is it really though? It seems like it would be the enemy of an uptight conservative society that only speaks of freedoms from the side of their mouth while limiting the freedoms to only those things which they agree.
There is literally no proof that John Ehrlichman said this to Dan Baum in 1994 and when Dan Baum made this statement John Ehrlichman was already dead and could not refute it. Note that his estate has denied this statement.
It also is not accurate that the Nixon administration increased incarceration of drug use. That occurred under Reagan and Clinton.
However, Nixon was the first president to coin the term "war on drugs" but this was a rhetorical flourish. The Nixon Administration repealed the federal 2–10-year mandatory minimum sentences for possession of marijuana and started federal demand reduction programs and drug-treatment programs.
> It was started by the Nixon administration to reduce the amount of left and left-leaning voters, particularly black Americans.
That is interesting information, thank you for commenting.
It shows that there was not a misinterpretation, as the article suggests, at least, not the initiators of the "War", but more of a well-calculated hidden agenda that had nothing to do with "drugs".
Perhaps some instigators had ulterior motives, but many who jumped on were part of the grand miscalculation. Though perhaps they should have looked at Prohibition for guidance too.
As with so many generalizations about the U.S., it's more complicated than that, and varies on a state-by-state basis.
Most people in jail retain the right to vote, regardless of state.
People currently in prison on felony charges CANNOT vote in most states, but this is up to each state. In many states, you get your enfranchisement restored after completing your sentence.
I used to think the same thing, until I read an article that made me look into it. The article I read was a local affair that pointed out that inmates are encouraged (in my state, Maine) to file absentee ballots in the town they lived in prior to incarceration.
There are just a couple of states that allow that, but I learned that quite a few jurisdictions restore rights after incarceration, after probation, etc...
That particular quote always makes the rounds in these kinds of discussions, but the veracity of it is challenged and suspect[1]. I'm inclined to disbelieve it on those grounds and also that it is so politically self-serving that is crosses into the "too good to be true" category.
Nixon is actually quite removed from the beginning of the War on Drugs. That quote is also of questionable authenticity, so doesn't illustrate the point very well. Reefer Madness, for example, was released in 1936 when Nixon was only 23.
Harry Anslinger was actually one of the most influential figures in the beginning of the modern big-government war on drugs. The anti-marijuana movement was a marriage of convenience between sensationalist yellow journalism from the Hearst empire, and good old-fashioned racism.
"By the tons it is coming into this country — the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms. ... Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him."
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
Whether or not it was Nixon and friends acting like racists is secondary. Tons of individuals and institutions piled on because there was power and money in it for them.
My read is that your statement is incorrect, in that they were not simply 'acting like racists'. Instead, they were instituting racially motivated policies to combat the advances of the civil rights movement through the '60s. Plus ca change.
The difference is that racism is not a secondary motivator. Racism would be baked into the desire for power, as it would then be a desire to instill white supremacy.
You can say it’s secondary, but it’s a good answer to the question raised by the parent: “it would be very interesting to know the reasoning to start it.”
Its not an uncommon thing in history either. One of the incarnations of the KKK supported prohibition because it gave them an excuse to persecute catholic irish immigrants.
This seems oversimplified. Lots of politically very diverse countries around the world have harsh penalties for possession of heroin.
I don't doubt that the Nixon administration exploited the war on drugs for nefarious ends. However, I think the idea that the entire impetuous behind it was to target particular social groups is bordering on a conspiracy theory.
It is a bit like suggesting that Democrats are pro immigration only because immigrants tend to vote Democrat. I'm sure it hasn't escaped the notice of Democratic electoral strategists that the party could stand to benefit from immigration. But it would be implausible to suggest that this is the only reason that Democrats tend to favor a more liberal immigration policy than Republicans.
So having rules and laws designed to leverage the justice system against Black Americans is conspiratorial? That's literally the history of this country, from The Black Codes, to Jim Crow, to the War On Drugs this has been standard operating procedure.
Steady on – that's not what I said. I'm sure the Nixon administration exploited the war on drugs for racist ends (just as they exploited many other things for racist ends). That doesn't mean that the sole explanation for the war on drugs is a Nixonian plot.
I don't buy it. That's one administration's decision to capitalize on anti-drug sentiment, but it really is a world-wide phenomenon with many powerful countries not controlled by the US choosing to continue outlawing drugs, like middle eastern countries and China. Most Asian countries still have very harsh penalties for drug possession. If you use an earthquake or a hurricane to engage in some crony capitalism, it doesn't mean you started the earthquake. Likewise, something about drug control means most governments have a stake in perpetuating it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis
China and Middle Eastern countries are one-party states, not peer countries with comparable independent systems of criminal justice. Yes, many drugs are illegal in other peer countries (the UK, France, Canada, etc.). But the percentage of the United States' population incarcerated on drug-related charges alone is higher than the percentage of peer countries' population incarcerated on all charges. So the United States isn't simply outlawing drugs, it is choosing to crack down in a way that peers aren't. As far as the racial element goes, it's hard to separate racism from drug enforcement: the vast majority of those serving prison time on drug related charges are people of color (the percentage is greater in federal prisons than state prisons), even though substance abuse rates are similar across groups.
I buy it. It was forced on the world by the UN with the convention of psychotropic substances 1971. Only a handful of nations, now including the US are seeing this as a horrible mistake.
It is, was and always will be a horrible mistake, maybe the worst sociopolitical action in the 20th century. The brutality we have seen as a result of these policies leaves little moral ambiguity.
The argument is that Richard Nixon, a disgraced and impeached president, is conveniently responsible for all of the world's drug control "because racism." That sounds a little too comic book villainy to me. Nixon was such a failure that his successor could've immediately reversed that decision. To say that China is still to this day executing drug dealers because Richard Nixon was racist(which is true, I don't dispute that) is missing the forest for the trees.
Nixon was a comic book villain. China executes political prisoners and sells their organs. What China does has no baring on sensible drug policy; quite the opposite.
Isn't it a convenient excuse for other countries, too? In the same way that 'think of the children' is an argument for more censorship and Big Brother-style laws.
I'd rather just focus on the 10% that is the detailed content, versus 90% hype, but to each their own. I don't need to be told for 3 hours that every minor feature is an Earth-shattering event.
Honestly this blog post is 90% gibberish. Skimming over it, I just see meaningless word salads like "navigat[ing] the current environment", "design[ing] a Surface for every person", and "stay[ing] connected to the people and content that matters".
