You utterly misunderstood the quote. It is not suggesting that anybody can create an unbreakable cypher. In fact it means the exact opposite of what you are arguing against. It means being unable to break your own cypher doesnt mean its even a little hard to break. You need lots of people trying to hreak it in order to get a decent one .
And what proof do you have that this historical record has not been tampered with by 200 years of clerks in archives ? None. Clerks in congress today are regularly caught altering the current record and even adding entire clauses to laws that were never voted on. Do you think that would happen unless they mostly get away with it. What proof do you have the record was even accurately written down when we know for a fact that they routinely arent ?
How can you be sure of your interpretation of that record when that depends on the meaning of every other phrase in there ? If any phrase's meaning is uncertain all phrases are. That doesnt prove your reading. It merely raises more unanswerable questions.
Get a copy of the harcourt brace anthology of drama published before 2000. There is a paragrapg in there that declares that Greek actors wore high heels. But no copy published after that date includes this claim. Yet the evidence has not changed at all. The theory which was unremarkable and sound history during the many years it was included sprang from solid archeological proof. A figurine found in athens of an actor with spikes on the heels. It was removed when somebody suggested "maybe the spikes was just so you could pose the figurines on a board with holes drilled in it". At least as reasonable an interpretation of the evidence as the former standard theory. But its mere existence precludes stating either as absolute fact anymore.
My history classes still taught that the minoan ruins many walls were mazelike and probably indicates that the complexity of the castle inspired the minotoar legend - the explanation first proposed when they were originally dug up. But that theory is almost universally rejected today. In fact most contemporary scholars dont think its a castle at all but a temple and the reliefs depict priests not a king. What will they be next year ?
Its a conservative article of faith that the Weimar republics keynesian spending destroyed the economy and led to the rise of Hitler. But Hitler's 1921 coup failed because he lacked popular support. He never had majority support but he won a few seats in 1929... no doubt economic collapse opened the door... but not from spending. If the spending hadnt worked the coup would have succeeded but ina mere 3 years there was enough recovery to deny him success and he couldnt even get the minor support he leveraged into absolute power until he had the great depression to help him. Power he then solidified by greatly relieving the effects of the depression through a Keneysian spending plan.
So which interpretation is true ? Neither is the answer. Real history s far too complex for either of these simple stories to be true. Neither considers the impact of the hitlerjugend for example - which was decidedly not an economic matter but definitely helped him gain power.
History is a field of incredibly useful speculation. But facts ? The only subjects that ever offers those are entirely abstract ones like maths or fine art (and the kind of facts in the latter is usually only true for exactly one person at one moment in time - this photo is beautiful to me)
And how many international standars hashing algorithms have you written ? This is like some guy who just built a barbeque pit calling the designer of the Golden Gate bridge "not an actual civil engineer"
Its not an opinion that its an impossible task. You are actually expecting judges to di something no history professor would dare. It cannot be done. Its as fundamentally beyond the ability of history as a science as a perpetual motion machine is beyond engineering.
History 101: there is no such thing as historical fact. You have physical evidence but that proves nothing except the existence of itself and even that requires scepticism since hoaxes exist. What the evidence means ? Every theory is as good as every other. The 'orthodox' theory is whatever most historians consider the best argued theory. Overnight the orthodox theory can change (and regularly does) without a shred of new evidence - simply because some body had another idea on what the evidence means and could make a better argument to defend it.
And you want judges to choose a right answer to historical questions ? You want them to make an objective determination on what somethings means ? By definition a subjective question. We will colonize the surface of the sun vefore any judge ever actually does what originalists think they can do.
Again... a purely academic question of historical interest only. Its answer is less than useless for answering imigration policy today.
And its perfectly valid to interpret that phrase to mean 'as well as any other teritories under the jurisdiction of the government' which rather than exclude native americans would give citizenship to, for example, those born in American Samoa. Something they surely deserve. Hell more Somoans are veterans per capita than any other group or location in the US and the dont have a VA.
Arguing which meaning was intended all those years ago is a futile effort. Its provably impossible to get it right. Instead it makes much more sense to deliberate on what tjose words ought to mean today. Both the originalist and non-originalist judges actually do that and only that anyway - but at least the latter is honest about it and their justifications can be asessed on merrit.
Standard principle of law dating all the way to the roman republic: a law applies to everyone not explicitely excluded. Confirmed that way through 2500 years of precedent. What you mean is "when the ammended was written did its authors forsee this modern question and consider it ?" And you want me to conclude "no... so it does not apply" but that conclusion is false. The right conclusion is "it does not matter. The law as written does not exclude anybody so it applies to everybody until repealed".
The definition if marriage in US law has been changed at least 4 times since it was first written and never once has that been done through a new law. The court was merely, at each moment, applying the contemporary societal definition to the question before it.
And every one of your examples is better supported by precedent based applied reading than by originalism. No court today needs to determine if Apaches were citizens in 1840. But one may face a question on whether an Apache can run for president. That question would be best answered by analysing all court decisions on similar matters there are. And is likely to then conclude "yes" even thougj this was probably not possible in 1840.
As for writing new laws. Like I said the founding fathers wanted a new constitution every decade or two. That got lost. A process via the supreme court has thus ended up filling much of the gap. You cannot conceivably remove that process unless you institute an alternative (Madisons desire or something else) first.
If that was what constitunional originalists actually did it would merely be stupid. In practise its an excuse to prevent rights existing for people who didnt have them 200 years ago. Even then its stupid. Any trained linguist will tell you every word had multiple meanings 200 years ago just like today, and context must be derived from tangential sources where invariably there are mukultip contradictory ones. Which meaning a judge ends up accepting as the original is always and without exception a purely subjective judgement call selected to support whatever interpretation fits the judge's own politicam beliefs about what the law "ought" to say. We can know this as absolute fact because objectively determining the meaning of a word in a 200 year old text is provably an absolute impossibility. When no two linguists agree what a line in shakespeare really meant this is harmless and in fact linguistics is improved by having solid arguments for all possible meanings. When judges declare some meaning of an old text absolute despite the flat out scientific impossibility of them being right (except by pure chance) then they destroy all the ideals of a free society.
Ironically a much more accurate reading can provably be derived by looking at past interpretations in court cases and tracing how they changed over time and changing in the same way for present questions. By simple scientiffic fact the majority in Obergefell for example was therefore more right than Scalia's originalism as they correctly noted that the meaning of marriage has changed many times in US history and should be intetpreted according to current knowledge and social norms. Exactly what the founding fathers intended: a living constitution that always reflects todays views.
Well, they *did* intend for it to be reviewed and updated continously. James Madison suggested it be reviewed by a major national congress based on referendums every 10 years.
Their big mistake was not mandating that in the words - so now it's used like holy writ and it's authors like prophets, exactly what they knew better than to want !
Actually... to be serious... did any OS even *have* password protected lock-screens c.a. 1993 ? I don't recall any - and certainly none that had it by default.
I think Mulder's computer security relied on nobody knowing there was a computer in that room... I'm pretty sure each department of janitorial staff thought the door to Mulder's office was actually a supply closet used by one of the other janitorial departments.
I've always been hugely in favour of jailing CEOs. If the company commits a crime for which *I* would go to jail, then their fucking CEO should be sharing a cell with me.
How ironic that the first time it may actually happen - it's because of refusing to do something which shouldn't be a crime and is actually GOOD for the public... where was this zealous law enforcement against the fraudulent banksters in 2008 ? Where was this for all the companies that dumped toxic shit in people's drinking water ? Where's this "jail the CEO" desire for the executives at VW ?
Hell apple has done a lot of shit I think Cook OUGHT to be in jail for - their use of child-labor in unsafe sweatshops is near the top of that list. But the first glimpse that Cook may actually serve time it's a possible contempt charge for a rare occasion of a corporation actually doing the RIGHT thing (for utterly selfish reasons of course).
You, and the FBI, are assuming that apple is even capable of writing such software.
I'm not so convinced. Bruce Schneier has frequently said: "Anybody can create a security system he himself cannot break", his point is in favour of open security and encryption standards of course - the point of a security system is that somebody else shouldn't be able to break it, being unable yourself is no evidence of that. But it also has some legitimacy as a more direct claim. Apple was responding to the market pressures that came post-Snowden in particular, and the best response was to make that thing as secure as their best engineers could figure out how to do - which, by definition, is a system MORE secure than their best engineers can figure out how to BREAK.
The odds are, in fact, quite strongly against apple actually having the skills to do what they are being asked - though I doubt they would readily say that in public, computer security engineers would understand it but the public may well fail to understand it. The last thing you want to do is make a public statement that sounds to customers like you're declaring yourself incompetent. It would,to experts, however mean the opposite - it would mean they had been sincere when trying to build the most secure system they could. The most secure system anybody can build is a system more secure than they themselves can break.
If what they were doing was not *exactly* in agreement with the will of the people (you know - those guys whose consent you're supposed to have for governing them) - then it would be a piss-poor marketing strategy, akin to an ad saying "Buy an apple, we rape children for cheap labour to make them". Of course they do, in fact, do that - but they would never put it in an ad - it's a bad marketing strategy to tell the public something they don't want to hear.
Clearly then the public DOES want to hear: "We refuse to make it easy for the government to read your texts".
And since the government is supposed to work FOR the taxpayers and voters, they may want to start listening to what the boss is telling them.
Did we just see a conservative basically admitting that Romney as president would have been a shitty outcome ?
Well he was a supporter of trickle-down, which was formerly known as Horse-and-Sparrow economics. The metaphor being that "if you feed the horses well the sparrows can get by on the seeds in their droppings". So it kind of comes full circle -the term "horse-and-sparrow" fell out of favor after somebody pointed out the problem with it: the poor are *literally* expected to eat horseshit.
Papers you clearly misunderstood. The US was founded the way it was in an attempt to resurrect the ancient idea of democracy. 2000 years of history told the founders that without a sovereign a large state cannot function. So they came up with the idea of a sovereign made of paper. A constitution as ultimate authority but created democratically... the will of the people became the king. This also means constitutional origanilism is a contradiction in terms that flat out disrespects the spirit and nature of the constitution. Its not holy writ. Its the exact opposite. Its supposed to be a living document constantly updated to reflect the will pf the king (i.e. the voters) at any given time. James Madison wanted a congress every decade to ammend or even rewrite tge constitution based on refferenda of ordinary citizens demands. One could argue about whether this was a good idea or not. One could claim that the gradual erosion of this ideal was a good thing. But to pretend the authors would not insist that America today needs, for example, a referendum on scrapping the second amendment or making medicare for all a constitutional right os flat out ahistorical wishful thinking. Whatever good reasons you may have to argue against either change the will of the founders isnt one. Their will was that your generation must decide everything for yourself and the next for themselves.
It has not. The phrase implied the empire being so big that it was always daylight somewhere they rule. Its still true... but barely. One tiny Caribean Island would end it if it went independent. XKCD did a what-if about it.
Valve seems to agree with you - and are betting quite a lot on that being true with the link and the steam-machines and streaming.
They may be right too - I love my steam link. It's actually very nice to sometimes play PC games in the living room on the massive screen. Those that play well on a steam controller anyway.
I know you're joking but we are actually doing that in a way. The upper limit of efficiency for a solar cell is about 30% - and we're still about 10% below that on even the best experimental designs. So how do we make solar panels that have higher efficiency than that ? By layering cells on top of each other, so the second layer will use some of the photons that the first layer let through etc. etc. I believe (but I may be wrong) that the common commercial panels these days use three-layer cells.
Slashdot Mirror
He's Allice, she's Bob.
You utterly misunderstood the quote. It is not suggesting that anybody can create an unbreakable cypher. In fact it means the exact opposite of what you are arguing against. It means being unable to break your own cypher doesnt mean its even a little hard to break. You need lots of people trying to hreak it in order to get a decent one .
And what proof do you have that this historical record has not been tampered with by 200 years of clerks in archives ? None.
Clerks in congress today are regularly caught altering the current record and even adding entire clauses to laws that were never voted on. Do you think that would happen unless they mostly get away with it. What proof do you have the record was even accurately written down when we know for a fact that they routinely arent ?
How can you be sure of your interpretation of that record when that depends on the meaning of every other phrase in there ? If any phrase's meaning is uncertain all phrases are. That doesnt prove your reading. It merely raises more unanswerable questions.
Get a copy of the harcourt brace anthology of drama published before 2000. There is a paragrapg in there that declares that Greek actors wore high heels. But no copy published after that date includes this claim. Yet the evidence has not changed at all. The theory which was unremarkable and sound history during the many years it was included sprang from solid archeological proof. A figurine found in athens of an actor with spikes on the heels.
It was removed when somebody suggested "maybe the spikes was just so you could pose the figurines on a board with holes drilled in it".
At least as reasonable an interpretation of the evidence as the former standard theory. But its mere existence precludes stating either as absolute fact anymore.
My history classes still taught that the minoan ruins many walls were mazelike and probably indicates that the complexity of the castle inspired the minotoar legend - the explanation first proposed when they were originally dug up. But that theory is almost universally rejected today. In fact most contemporary scholars dont think its a castle at all but a temple and the reliefs depict priests not a king.
What will they be next year ?
Its a conservative article of faith that the Weimar republics keynesian spending destroyed the economy and led to the rise of Hitler. But Hitler's 1921 coup failed because he lacked popular support. He never had majority support but he won a few seats in 1929... no doubt economic collapse opened the door... but not from spending. If the spending hadnt worked the coup would have succeeded but ina mere 3 years there was enough recovery to deny him success and he couldnt even get the minor support he leveraged into absolute power until he had the great depression to help him. Power he then solidified by greatly relieving the effects of the depression through a Keneysian spending plan.
So which interpretation is true ? Neither is the answer. Real history s far too complex for either of these simple stories to be true. Neither considers the impact of the hitlerjugend for example - which was decidedly not an economic matter but definitely helped him gain power.
History is a field of incredibly useful speculation. But facts ? The only subjects that ever offers those are entirely abstract ones like maths or fine art (and the kind of facts in the latter is usually only true for exactly one person at one moment in time - this photo is beautiful to me)
And how many international standars hashing algorithms have you written ? This is like some guy who just built a barbeque pit calling the designer of the Golden Gate bridge "not an actual civil engineer"
Ok. Never used that.
Its not an opinion that its an impossible task. You are actually expecting judges to di something no history professor would dare. It cannot be done. Its as fundamentally beyond the ability of history as a science as a perpetual motion machine is beyond engineering.
History 101: there is no such thing as historical fact. You have physical evidence but that proves nothing except the existence of itself and even that requires scepticism since hoaxes exist. What the evidence means ? Every theory is as good as every other. The 'orthodox' theory is whatever most historians consider the best argued theory. Overnight the orthodox theory can change (and regularly does) without a shred of new evidence - simply because some body had another idea on what the evidence means and could make a better argument to defend it.
And you want judges to choose a right answer to historical questions ? You want them to make an objective determination on what somethings means ? By definition a subjective question.
We will colonize the surface of the sun vefore any judge ever actually does what originalists think they can do.
Again... a purely academic question of historical interest only. Its answer is less than useless for answering imigration policy today.
And its perfectly valid to interpret that phrase to mean 'as well as any other teritories under the jurisdiction of the government' which rather than exclude native americans would give citizenship to, for example, those born in American Samoa. Something they surely deserve. Hell more Somoans are veterans per capita than any other group or location in the US and the dont have a VA.
Arguing which meaning was intended all those years ago is a futile effort. Its provably impossible to get it right. Instead it makes much more sense to deliberate on what tjose words ought to mean today. Both the originalist and non-originalist judges actually do that and only that anyway - but at least the latter is honest about it and their justifications can be asessed on merrit.
Standard principle of law dating all the way to the roman republic: a law applies to everyone not explicitely excluded. Confirmed that way through 2500 years of precedent.
What you mean is "when the ammended was written did its authors forsee this modern question and consider it ?" And you want me to conclude "no... so it does not apply" but that conclusion is false. The right conclusion is "it does not matter. The law as written does not exclude anybody so it applies to everybody until repealed".
The definition if marriage in US law has been changed at least 4 times since it was first written and never once has that been done through a new law. The court was merely, at each moment, applying the contemporary societal definition to the question before it.
And every one of your examples is better supported by precedent based applied reading than by originalism.
No court today needs to determine if Apaches were citizens in 1840. But one may face a question on whether an Apache can run for president. That question would be best answered by analysing all court decisions on similar matters there are. And is likely to then conclude "yes" even thougj this was probably not possible in 1840.
As for writing new laws. Like I said the founding fathers wanted a new constitution every decade or two. That got lost. A process via the supreme court has thus ended up filling much of the gap. You cannot conceivably remove that process unless you institute an alternative (Madisons desire or something else) first.
If that was what constitunional originalists actually did it would merely be stupid. In practise its an excuse to prevent rights existing for people who didnt have them 200 years ago.
Even then its stupid. Any trained linguist will tell you every word had multiple meanings 200 years ago just like today, and context must be derived from tangential sources where invariably there are mukultip contradictory ones. Which meaning a judge ends up accepting as the original is always and without exception a purely subjective judgement call selected to support whatever interpretation fits the judge's own politicam beliefs about what the law "ought" to say. We can know this as absolute fact because objectively determining the meaning of a word in a 200 year old text is provably an absolute impossibility.
When no two linguists agree what a line in shakespeare really meant this is harmless and in fact linguistics is improved by having solid arguments for all possible meanings.
When judges declare some meaning of an old text absolute despite the flat out scientific impossibility of them being right (except by pure chance) then they destroy all the ideals of a free society.
Ironically a much more accurate reading can provably be derived by looking at past interpretations in court cases and tracing how they changed over time and changing in the same way for present questions. By simple scientiffic fact the majority in Obergefell for example was therefore more right than Scalia's originalism as they correctly noted that the meaning of marriage has changed many times in US history and should be intetpreted according to current knowledge and social norms. Exactly what the founding fathers intended: a living constitution that always reflects todays views.
Well, they *did* intend for it to be reviewed and updated continously. James Madison suggested it be reviewed by a major national congress based on referendums every 10 years.
Their big mistake was not mandating that in the words - so now it's used like holy writ and it's authors like prophets, exactly what they knew better than to want !
Actually, this is more in the grand tradition of the circular firing squad.
Actually... to be serious... did any OS even *have* password protected lock-screens c.a. 1993 ? I don't recall any - and certainly none that had it by default.
I think Mulder's computer security relied on nobody knowing there was a computer in that room... I'm pretty sure each department of janitorial staff thought the door to Mulder's office was actually a supply closet used by one of the other janitorial departments.
I've always been hugely in favour of jailing CEOs. If the company commits a crime for which *I* would go to jail, then their fucking CEO should be sharing a cell with me.
How ironic that the first time it may actually happen - it's because of refusing to do something which shouldn't be a crime and is actually GOOD for the public... where was this zealous law enforcement against the fraudulent banksters in 2008 ? Where was this for all the companies that dumped toxic shit in people's drinking water ? Where's this "jail the CEO" desire for the executives at VW ?
Hell apple has done a lot of shit I think Cook OUGHT to be in jail for - their use of child-labor in unsafe sweatshops is near the top of that list. But the first glimpse that Cook may actually serve time it's a possible contempt charge for a rare occasion of a corporation actually doing the RIGHT thing (for utterly selfish reasons of course).
You, and the FBI, are assuming that apple is even capable of writing such software.
I'm not so convinced. Bruce Schneier has frequently said: "Anybody can create a security system he himself cannot break", his point is in favour of open security and encryption standards of course - the point of a security system is that somebody else shouldn't be able to break it, being unable yourself is no evidence of that. But it also has some legitimacy as a more direct claim.
Apple was responding to the market pressures that came post-Snowden in particular, and the best response was to make that thing as secure as their best engineers could figure out how to do - which, by definition, is a system MORE secure than their best engineers can figure out how to BREAK.
The odds are, in fact, quite strongly against apple actually having the skills to do what they are being asked - though I doubt they would readily say that in public, computer security engineers would understand it but the public may well fail to understand it. The last thing you want to do is make a public statement that sounds to customers like you're declaring yourself incompetent. ,to experts, however mean the opposite - it would mean they had been sincere when trying to build the most secure system they could. The most secure system anybody can build is a system more secure than they themselves can break.
It would
I keep reading that analogy, but it makes no sense... there's no car in there anywhere !
If what they were doing was not *exactly* in agreement with the will of the people (you know - those guys whose consent you're supposed to have for governing them) - then it would be a piss-poor marketing strategy, akin to an ad saying "Buy an apple, we rape children for cheap labour to make them". Of course they do, in fact, do that - but they would never put it in an ad - it's a bad marketing strategy to tell the public something they don't want to hear.
Clearly then the public DOES want to hear: "We refuse to make it easy for the government to read your texts".
And since the government is supposed to work FOR the taxpayers and voters, they may want to start listening to what the boss is telling them.
Did we just see a conservative basically admitting that Romney as president would have been a shitty outcome ?
Well he was a supporter of trickle-down, which was formerly known as Horse-and-Sparrow economics. The metaphor being that "if you feed the horses well the sparrows can get by on the seeds in their droppings". So it kind of comes full circle -the term "horse-and-sparrow" fell out of favor after somebody pointed out the problem with it: the poor are *literally* expected to eat horseshit.
Papers you clearly misunderstood. The US was founded the way it was in an attempt to resurrect the ancient idea of democracy. 2000 years of history told the founders that without a sovereign a large state cannot function. So they came up with the idea of a sovereign made of paper. A constitution as ultimate authority but created democratically... the will of the people became the king.
This also means constitutional origanilism is a contradiction in terms that flat out disrespects the spirit and nature of the constitution. Its not holy writ. Its the exact opposite. Its supposed to be a living document constantly updated to reflect the will pf the king (i.e. the voters) at any given time. James Madison wanted a congress every decade to ammend or even rewrite tge constitution based on refferenda of ordinary citizens demands. One could argue about whether this was a good idea or not. One could claim that the gradual erosion of this ideal was a good thing.
But to pretend the authors would not insist that America today needs, for example, a referendum on scrapping the second amendment or making medicare for all a constitutional right os flat out ahistorical wishful thinking. Whatever good reasons you may have to argue against either change the will of the founders isnt one. Their will was that your generation must decide everything for yourself and the next for themselves.
And I'm a cradle of filth fan who knows Jesus is a cunt.
It has not. The phrase implied the empire being so big that it was always daylight somewhere they rule. Its still true... but barely. One tiny Caribean Island would end it if it went independent. XKCD did a what-if about it.
Valve seems to agree with you - and are betting quite a lot on that being true with the link and the steam-machines and streaming.
They may be right too - I love my steam link. It's actually very nice to sometimes play PC games in the living room on the massive screen. Those that play well on a steam controller anyway.
In short: honesty is often rude, but rude is not often honest.
I know you're joking but we are actually doing that in a way. The upper limit of efficiency for a solar cell is about 30% - and we're still about 10% below that on even the best experimental designs.
So how do we make solar panels that have higher efficiency than that ? By layering cells on top of each other, so the second layer will use some of the photons that the first layer let through etc. etc.
I believe (but I may be wrong) that the common commercial panels these days use three-layer cells.