1. Whether he was a contractor or not is actually controversial. According to Snowden, he was an agent and his contractor status was cover. So we don't know if he was a contractor or whether he was a full blown analyst and operative.
2. He didn't do it alone. It is quite obvious that he had a lot of help from other like minded people inside the agency.
3. This "crummy" comment is just a baseless insult without meaning.
4. As to China and Russia getting access to the NSA, it is quite clear that much of what Snowden made public was news to the Chinese and Russians so they did not have access prior to that.
5. As whether your statement that I must either agree with your vague and baseless position or there is something wrong with me... I could reverse that upon you as well mr AC. I think rather you either understand your manifest logical errors in your post or really you're probably too ignorant to have this discussion.:)
Did you enjoy being condescended to?... Because if you want to play that game, you'll lose... I'm better at it.
As to hugging, it is an expression. It means can you touch it. Not whether you can literally get your arms around the entire thing.
Point is that as a sys admin, if I can't touch a server or there isn't someone I trust that can touch the server... then we have a problem.
Cloud services are fine for non-mission critical low security work.
But if you're talking about something that is absolutely vital to your organization or contains really sensitive information... no.
The biggest sellers of data service services don't do that. Amazon self hosts and so does google. Their critical systems are handled by THEIR technical people. Google and Amazon can hug their own servers.
The DoD should sit down with the NSA and work out a plan. Have the NSA design it. The NSA knows how to secure a datacenter. Have them write it up and give the Navy the protocol.
First law of computer security is physical security.
If the DoD loses physical control over their system then they cannot secure them. This looks like folly to me.
I think DoD consolidated data centers is entirely reasonable and I don't know why they're shifting from that. Being able to hug the server is enormously valuable. If something goes wrong with it, then someone has to hug it. And if it isn't one of your people then that means you're giving access to a third party.
Considering how interested foreign governments are to gain access to these systems, it would be a mistake to think the cloud system is going to protect anything. We've seen repeated examples of the cloud system failing in security.
The cloud system is generally more economical. But that is its only virtue.
As to this notion that the navy has to democratize its tech... the military is not a democracy. What is more BYOD schemes are inherently less secure. If the military doesn't take information security seriously, they are going to get their clocks cleaned.
Putin for example has shifted the FSB to use typewriters that print on PAPER to secure top secret documents because they don't trust their information security. For the DoD to think they can get away with BYOD schemes, commercial datacenters, and "Democratizing" their information security means they have NO clue the sort of resources being put into breaching their systems. This is madness. Ask the NSA if they'd do any of these things.
1. The NSA runs their OWN datacenter. They do not sublet. 2. The NSA doesn't democratize their information security. They dictate it. Within their organization, you comply or else. 3. The NSA would outright laugh at a BYOD scheme since they don't even let cell phones or mobile computers or thumb drives within many of their facilities much less let their staff run around with god knows what kind of machine that has access to their most critical systems for no reason.
This is dumb.
Look, different agencies should be responsible for whatever they understand. If I wanted to run a naval battle engagement, I'd put the Navy in charge of that. If I am trying to secure government computer systems, then I would put experts in that field in charge... give this to the NSA. They know how to breach a system so they know how to secure it.
The drug war needs to be made as impotent as possible.
Beyond that, one thing that would be quite interesting is if long term medication could be administered by adding the bacteria to your gut. So it just bred down there naturally turning some of your food on a regular basis into whatever drug you need.
I don't know who you're talking to... he's sort of a joke. The big problem with him is that he has no track record in government or even management or leadership. I mean, a CEO would have more credibility and we don't nominate those either.
Generally republicans only nominate people with some leadership experience in government.
Go through the list. Occasionally republicans will nominate someone out of the legislature but that is uncommon. Typically republicans prefer governors or generals or other people with leadership experience.
Carson has no leadership experience and no track record. He's never run anything. You don't put someone in the position of president with no leadership experience. It almost always works out badly.
Are you under the delusion that a senator from Illinious that no one had ever heard from before and hadn't even served more than ONE YEAR in the senate won the presidency for a reason besides him being black?
If Obama had been a white guy, he would not have won the presidency. In fact, he probably wouldn't have even won his senate seat.
Do you deny that?
Again, I was many of the people that put him in office in the first place on that basis.
Responding "what the fuck" to reality is just an admission of ignorance.
All further posts will be taken as confirmation of my initial assumption of your motivations unless contradicted.
You could of course lie to me you know. Many cryptos do that in your position. You get them cornered and they just lie.
I'll probably be able to tell of course. Your nature is very distinctive. I have quite a bit of experience with it and you people aren't unique at all... though you do seem to always think you are... part of your persecution complex.
The last defenders of a misunderstood faith and all that... sort of amusing.
Anyway... you can either respond to my challenge or there is little more to say here. I'm nearly a 100 percent convinced at this point that I pegged you right out of the gate. That Malthus citation... you'll need to watch that sort of thing if you want to get better at being a crypto. You have to use less distinctive citations. Also if you read any communist literature, make sure you don't pick up the terminology of the work. It tends to be unusual and another dead give away.
WoW is dead isn't it? I mean... that game is so fucking old at this point. What kind of future can it possibly have. And really, banning people at this point? Why not so many god damn years ago? The gold farmers have been a problem in the game since always. There are literally chinese convicts playing WoW to sell gold to lazy fat kids that are so stupid they'd rather pay someone to lessen the irritation of the skinner box rather than just STOP playing a shitty game.
Sorry... I hate grindy games. I like to game but I do NOT like to grind. The only games I'll play that have grinding are Mobas and that is only because the level progression caps out after about 15 minutes in most cases. Grind COMPLETE.
As to corporate asshats wanting to take it there... they could want to turn the Sun blue if they wanted... they won't succeed.
I haven't that they won't try. I've argued that they'll fail. People fail all the time. Great men. Small men. Medium sized men... everyone fails. And failure is quite likely when one tries to accomplish the impossible.
You have your experience... I'll presume it is accurate out of politeness even though there is no way to validate it. However, it is a mistake to forget your fundamentals. Anything created by one human mind CAN and WILL be outdone by another. The hubris of DRM is that you can give me a puzzle and it will be so complex that I won't be smart enough to unravel it. Even though you were smart enough to construct it.
That is folly.
As to your link about how people should avoid Official patches after jailbreaking their phone... of course. And so what? Once you jail break, you have to use jailbroken roms.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Of course you can't use official releases after jailbreaking. The trick is to grab something with as early a release as possible and then wait for the crackers to break it and release the cracks.
The reason the cracks stop at a certain point is that the crackers aren't interested in breaking every single f'ing release. They don't care at a certain point. If they break it at point X and they used the exploit at point X why are they going to break their heads open trying to help other people get past it when everyone in their community already used the exploit and are just fine there after? Do you see? The cracks stop not because the cracker can't break it but because the cracker has already won and so stops.
Every new iphone gets broken even though every new iphone is using a newer version of the OS. Every time the crackers find new exploits because they need to because the old exploits are patched.
You're really just proving my point here. If you were right then around the iphone FIVE you'd think they would have stopped people from jail breaking their phones. They haven't.
As to the future of a non jailbreakable iphone... that day has not come yet.
Further, who gives a flying fuck about apple anyway? I'm sorry but what can an iOS phone do that an android can't? Anything? I use a android phone that came from the factory entirely unlocked. Motorola doesn't give a shit. You just get the developer edition which at the time was the same price. I don't know if that changed. But I wasn't paying a dime more and I didn't.
I'm not buying locked products and I generally disdain anyone that does. If there were more people like me they wouldn't lock the fucking things in the first place because it would hurt sales too much.
As to MS selling a locked down machine, I'm sure someone will buy it. But companies won't and neither will large segments of their consumer base. So... they can do that if they want but there will always be unlocked hardware for me to use so I don't really care what some idiot buys at walmart.
As to chrombooks, you can unlock those.
As to tiny machines, I'm very glad you mentoned the pi and the ardinio. They're both open source and they both are massively unlocked. What I think you're missing is that there are many different camps on this issue. You have the corporations that want to create monopolies. And then you have the suppliers that just want to sell their crap to as many people as possible. And then you have the corporate users that want machines THEY control utterly. And then you have the much larger than you think DIY community that wants to have total control over every aspect of the machine down to the hardware level.
And the thing is that everyone is going to get what they want.
The monopolists are going to build walled gardens, the suppliers will sell equivilent technology to anyone that wants to buy it, the corporate users are going to get machines they utterly control, and the DIY people are going to get machines they utterly
as to your interest in fixing the problem... then lets hear you talk about how you'd fix it.
*steeples hands* Go on... I'm listening.
I'm clearly not impressed with your moral position, so I think we need to hear about the basis of your complaint. What is wrong with the legal system.
And do have it be applicable to execution please. I'd rather not hear more about the people picked up for weed or the people given bad plea bargains. That was a particularly hilarious rebuttal given that both groups are by definition not sentenced to death.
How do you plea bargain someone into execution? Comical.
I'm listening. What is the problem with the legal system?
No, it means I have to guess... and the fact that he's being evasive means at the very least he is a crypto... That is fact at this point.
The fact that he brought up malthus is highly suggestive that he is some brand of marxist or communist. And thus he is likely a crypto marxist.
I can't be 100 percent sure about the marxist bit... but it is highly likely. Certain ideologies give themselves away based on the types of words they use and the references they cite.
For example, radical libertarians will out themselves by using terms like "obscenity" which is not often used in modern language but was used CONSTANTLY by Ayn Rand... so if you hear "obscenity" over and over in someone's rants then that is suggestive.
There are markers for pretty much every ideology because the foremost writers in each have distinctive vocabularies certain references which are touchstones for each ideology.
So if I hear the same odd word pop up over over and over again that suggests I'm talking to someone from that group. Or if I hear a reference that is typically only cited by a given ideology that is also suggestive.
Think of old Sherlock Holmes. His ability to know a dozen random facts about your life just by looking at you.
That's all I'm doing.
As I said, the unwillingness to answer the question is 100 percent validation of the crypto portion of my judgement which I pegged him with before he was even obviously evasive. I guessed he was a crypto because I he was using marxist references and nearly all marxists are crypto marxists. So... here he is validated as a crypto... and that only strengthens my other assumptions.
This isn't a court of law. I don't have to prove anything because I've not the weight of the court behind me. I can guess and have any opinion I want. This is my current calculation and given that he's refusing to correct me... I frankly think I nailed him right out of the gate. Which is really kind of impressive.
Well, not quite. See there is the primary where the base chooses what they'd like from amongst their own party and then there is the general election where each base robotically chooses its own candiates and then tries to convince some portion of the sleepy middle to go join their side.
I think if the democrats permitted anyone to run against hillary in the primary... seriously... then she'd probably be screwed before the general election. I don't see her getting a primary nod if there is really anyone else on the ticket. I don't see that happening though.
The establishment has really railled around hillary and unlike the republicans that are dealing with that whole revolt against the establishment thing... there is no revolt against the establishment in the DNC. So I think it is quite likely that hillery will get nominated.
Jeb has almost no chance of getting nominated. Ben Carson who likewise has no hope has about as much chance of pulling it off... or huckabee or some other hapless candidate that just has zero chance.
The carson issue is kind of annoying because the republicans NEED black candidates but they need to go through at LEAST the kind of vetting that Obama had... I mean, Obama was a senator for like a year or something. So... clearly presidential material. Ben has no political history. Jack. You don't do that... come out of no where and say "hey guys, why not elect me president!"... I mean... come on. Serve in the senate for at least a year first or SOMETHING. I mean... try your hand at mayor somewhere... ideally governor. Governors are generally better presidents because they have some executive experience.
Generals also do really well for some reason. Don't know why... but go through the list... not a lot of duds there.
Anyway, hillary will likely be the democrat nominee. God knows what the republicans are going to do... it is a god damn three ring circus in the GOP field. Most people figure it is one of three guys but who knows.
Point is, whomever it is will hammer hillary on all the stupid shit she refuses to talk about... and that isn't going to go well in the debates. The debates are meaningless for the base. The base has already decided at that point. They're voting for the person with a D after their name or an R. But the debates matter for the people in the sleepy middle that could go either way. And refusing to answer questions is likely to not go down very well in those settings.
So... as long as the republicans don't field a complete asshat... they should be able to win.
The big problem hillary has that Obama didn't have... is that she's not black. Look, I voted for Obama and I didn't even like his politics. I just thought "hey wouldn't it be nice if we had a black president for once... and maybe we can heal the racial divides and hands across America:D"... Literally my thinking at the time. Which Obama has since gone out of his way to make me feel stupid for by doing everything he can run salt in every racial issue he can find and then call anyone that disagrees with him about anything a racist. And he's remarkably gotten away with that. Hillary is unlikely to be able to do the same thing. She's not black. She does have a vagina... but I rather suspect that isn't going to get her as far in the whole identity politics game. There are after all lots of republicans with vaginas... not so many black republicans.
Anyway... it will be interesting. The identity politics will be everywhere. I'd just like to see Hillary deal with the latest round of embarressing details to come out about her conduct... the whole Uranium mine thing is pretty fucking pathetic.
Sure, and just like all big tent parties which is both the republicans and democrats... there are people that actually care about that.
So it is relevant... because they care. I'm not saying they should... but they do.
I mean, there are gay republicans... there is a group called the "log cabin republicans" i think... and they're openly gay and generally support the portions of the republican platform that aren't hostile to gay people.
And yet of course you're going to get a lot of gay bashing people that will attack them and say they shouldn't be there. I think recently they got run out of a CPAC event because the anti gay evangelicals are generally pretty unsavory.
And that is a problem. Because both of the parties are largely victims of extreme elements within both camps.
The repubilcans are victims of the intolerant religious radicals and the democrats are victims of the batshit insane communist fringe. They both influence their factions disproportionately to their size.
The fellow I was responding to is likely seen by most people in his political faction as an embarrassing reactionary. And just as the crazy religious people in the republican party are seen as embarressing nutters... it is just something both parties have to deal with because all votes count equally. Idiots count the same as the wise. Fucktards count the same as the intelligent.
And the human bell curve being what it is, it tends to be more profitable to focus on retards than any other group.
For one thing they're easier to manipulate and influence because they're stupid. And for another they're easier to turn into fanatics. And fanatics FOR your cause are quite useful. Both major parties make heavy use of fanatics.
Any substantive reform of the political system would have to filter such people out of the system more rigiously. First Past the Post is an attempt to filter outliers and it works to some extent. But it doesn't help when the fanatics are simply fanatics of degree rather than persuasion. First Past the Post filters fanatics that believe the moon is made of cheese. It doesn't filter fanatics that hold with the party line but would literally kill in the name of it.
You run into these people occasionally... right and left etc... all sides have them. And they you understand that if they were standing in front of you with a big knife and stabbing you would see their political ends met... they'd stab you right then and feel righteous for doing it.
That sort of thing isn't productive and it is to a large extent what has sadly happened to much of the Islamic world. They're all competing with each other to prove they're more holy than the next guy. And they do that by being more radical and willing to do more crazy shit in the name of their religion.
Zealots are useful as cannon fodder... but little else. The fellow I was responding to is used by his political faction in that same way. the political shock troops... they run in heedless of damage to their own credibility, get torn to fucking shreds but wear out the opposition to some extent... waste rhetorical ammunition and scare the wobbly defenders. Or they sow chaos while more methodical agents are free to move about doing whatever they want because the field is so muddied and chaotic.
And should anyone hold the moderates responsible for the radicals... they'll just say "oh those guys, they're not with me."... its generally tapestry of sadness.
Malthus is only remembered and trotted out by certain ideologies.
As to the validity, he based it on the Irish potato famine. So no, it wasn't valid even in his own time because the only reason the Irish were starving was due to English oppression. Ireland could feed itself just fine. The English were EXPORTING food from Ireland and fucking with land management which created a famine.
Do you know why the Irish even like Potatoes? Because a fun thing the English used to do was ride their horses over the fields of rebelious Irish towns. Want to know something fun about potatoes? Well, if you do that to potatoes they aren't ruined. The potatoes are UNDER the ground. Which means the horses don't destroy the food when the English ride their horses over the crops.
The theory is shit. Yes... if people behave like fucking lemmings then X will happen after time Y. But people aren't lemmings so the theory is shit.
But you're dodging my question. What are you politics?
If you make another response without citing your politics... feel free to not adopt a label and just explain yourself if you like. I'm waiting for it.... if you don't, I have to assume you're being intentionally evasive and I have to guess as to why you're doing that. I will likely conclude that I was just right since I presumed your evasion as a quality of your nature. A crypto-anything is someone that wishes to keep their beliefs secret. If you a crypto communist/maxist then you're not going to want to tell me that... its the crypto bit.
And when you deal with cryptos, you have to do your best to suss out what the fuck they're really after because they won't tell you. They operate through inference and misdirection.
I don't want to argue against what you're PRETENDING to care about. I will look to try and figure out what your real interests are and then I will draw them out.
I don't want to persecute you. I couldn't do it if I wanted to anyway. So there is no risk in just admitting it here. I'm not fucking Joe McCarthy. I'm just not interested in arguing against your pretenses.
Not at all... Do you want me to post some comments from democrat strategists and long time supporters of that party saying hillary is a dud? They're not hard to find, chum.
But if you want to jam your head so far up your own ass that you finally arrive in some magical echo chamber where hillary is a solid candidate? You go ahead and do that. Tell you how it is... isn't trolling.
If you want me to lie to your face and pretend... I can do that for you.
Is that what you want? More people lying to so you aren't made to feel uncomfortable for even an instant when you unrealistic views are subjected to reality?
Okay. I'll lie to you.
Hillary is a really strong candidate and everyone knows she's just going to breeze through the election like it isn't even there. In fact, why are we even having an election? Lets just crown her Queen.:D
That's exaggerated. Such things happen but McCain would have to have gotten a lot of legit votes to bring it to a tipping point. You MIGHT be able to claim that the dems were able to tip it but they weren't enough to bring it across on their own.
Hmmm... not really. You're just generally dismissing all criticism out of hand. If you were being actually generous you'd not do that.
But you did.
Do you want to talk about any of the specifics because on Benghazi and the emails specifically I don't see how you can defend that.
As to people being afraid of her... Quite the opposite. The republicans are actually quite happy that she's the opposition this time around. Obama was a problem because he could just say "you're being racist" every time you threw something at him. Hillary is trying to play the woman card but it isn't working out so well.
Anyway, if you think Hillary is a solid pick. Then I will just have to let the polls speak for themselves on that one. Both republicans and democrat strategists have said they think Hillary is weak. Most of her media supporters are savaging her for not addressing anything and just going silent. I'm really sort of baffled as to you thinking this is going to end well for her. She's headed for a colossal embarrassing defeat. All the republicans have to do this time around is not fuck up. Which is a tall order for many of them. Republicans are frequently TERRIBLE at politics. Bad public speakers, bad at reading the political tea leaves. Just so many mistakes.
So if that happens she might win. But it is the republican's race to lose if the dems nominate Hillary.
As to some theoretical future where DRM doesn't suck. I'll believe it when I see it. I've seen nothing to indicate that will ever change.
You're basically arguing that you can circumvent the first law of computer security and I don't credit that opinion.
As to software versus hardware, I think you're not understanding the field entirely.
As to not being able to access the innards of the system... they'll likely have diagnostic ports that can be accessed for repair. Lets say the system gets corrupted for some reason and you send it in to get repaired. If it can't be overridden without destroying it then repairs will be more expensive and that will make sustaining warranties problematic. So they're going to maintain backdoors or something to do that. And then all the cracker has to do is find them and use them... or worst case bribe a disgruntled tech at the repair depot to give him the codes. And then everyone's system gets unlocked.
You can't stop it.
And this doesn't even address emulator etc. Why for example do I even need to use your hardware at all? I should be able to run it on another bit of unlocked hardware and handle the abstraction in software.
But all things aren't equal. The "establishment" is just a powerful faction within BOTH parties. It is the establishment pushing Hillary for example.
However, just because the Establishment wants something doesn't mean they're going to get it. Even Jeb's MOTHER said there shouldn't be another Bush in the White house. Process that. He's also not doing well in the straw polls. Seriously ask a republican what they think of Jeb Bush... just ask... seriously... he's not popular.
And there are some reasons for that.
1. Republicans are a little bitter about Bush Jr. They felt he hurt the party's rep and they're not enjoying having to make excuses for him years after he left office. So letting his brother in is not seen as a good idea.
2. Republicans don't like the dynasty idea any more than anyone else. Republicans feel that two Bushes was pushing it and three would just be absurd.
3. Bush's positions are not the popular positions for republicans these days. He's pro amnesty for example which is not popular amongst republicans. He is pro H1-B visa etc which is not popular. He said recently that he doesn't know if he'd order troops into Iraq if he were in the same position as his brother. It is a long list. But the moral of the story is that he is generally unacceptable.
Lets say Hillary for example said she was against the ACA but the Establishment democrats still backed her.
Would she get the nomination?
And before you think that establishment rules the party, I'd point you at Eric Cantor who was very much an establishment republican but ran afoul of the reform wave that is going through the party and was ejected. I believe Eric is working for an investment bank now which most feel validated the ejection because people don't have good feelings about the investment banks these days.
Does any of this make any sense? Jeb isn't getting nominated. He's just soaking up campaign money from dupes in the establishment that think they can steam roll everyone else. I wouldn't worry about him.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Whether he was a contractor or not is actually controversial. According to Snowden, he was an agent and his contractor status was cover. So we don't know if he was a contractor or whether he was a full blown analyst and operative.
2. He didn't do it alone. It is quite obvious that he had a lot of help from other like minded people inside the agency.
3. This "crummy" comment is just a baseless insult without meaning.
4. As to China and Russia getting access to the NSA, it is quite clear that much of what Snowden made public was news to the Chinese and Russians so they did not have access prior to that.
5. As whether your statement that I must either agree with your vague and baseless position or there is something wrong with me... I could reverse that upon you as well mr AC. I think rather you either understand your manifest logical errors in your post or really you're probably too ignorant to have this discussion. :)
Did you enjoy being condescended to?... Because if you want to play that game, you'll lose... I'm better at it.
As to hugging, it is an expression. It means can you touch it. Not whether you can literally get your arms around the entire thing.
Point is that as a sys admin, if I can't touch a server or there isn't someone I trust that can touch the server... then we have a problem.
Cloud services are fine for non-mission critical low security work.
But if you're talking about something that is absolutely vital to your organization or contains really sensitive information... no.
The biggest sellers of data service services don't do that. Amazon self hosts and so does google. Their critical systems are handled by THEIR technical people. Google and Amazon can hug their own servers.
The DoD should sit down with the NSA and work out a plan. Have the NSA design it. The NSA knows how to secure a datacenter. Have them write it up and give the Navy the protocol.
... in awhile.
First law of computer security is physical security.
If the DoD loses physical control over their system then they cannot secure them. This looks like folly to me.
I think DoD consolidated data centers is entirely reasonable and I don't know why they're shifting from that. Being able to hug the server is enormously valuable. If something goes wrong with it, then someone has to hug it. And if it isn't one of your people then that means you're giving access to a third party.
Considering how interested foreign governments are to gain access to these systems, it would be a mistake to think the cloud system is going to protect anything. We've seen repeated examples of the cloud system failing in security.
The cloud system is generally more economical. But that is its only virtue.
As to this notion that the navy has to democratize its tech... the military is not a democracy. What is more BYOD schemes are inherently less secure. If the military doesn't take information security seriously, they are going to get their clocks cleaned.
Putin for example has shifted the FSB to use typewriters that print on PAPER to secure top secret documents because they don't trust their information security. For the DoD to think they can get away with BYOD schemes, commercial datacenters, and "Democratizing" their information security means they have NO clue the sort of resources being put into breaching their systems. This is madness. Ask the NSA if they'd do any of these things.
1. The NSA runs their OWN datacenter. They do not sublet.
2. The NSA doesn't democratize their information security. They dictate it. Within their organization, you comply or else.
3. The NSA would outright laugh at a BYOD scheme since they don't even let cell phones or mobile computers or thumb drives within many of their facilities much less let their staff run around with god knows what kind of machine that has access to their most critical systems for no reason.
This is dumb.
Look, different agencies should be responsible for whatever they understand. If I wanted to run a naval battle engagement, I'd put the Navy in charge of that. If I am trying to secure government computer systems, then I would put experts in that field in charge... give this to the NSA. They know how to breach a system so they know how to secure it.
Sorry, I am having like five different conversations at once and I got two of them confused.
Sorry.
Yeah, so I want to know what you fix is for the legal system.
Waiting. I want to know what changes you think need to be made to the legal system.
If you've got nothing than I will have to question your sincerity that your issue is flaws in the legal system.
The drug war needs to be made as impotent as possible.
Beyond that, one thing that would be quite interesting is if long term medication could be administered by adding the bacteria to your gut. So it just bred down there naturally turning some of your food on a regular basis into whatever drug you need.
If money determined who won, then Ross Perot would have won.
I don't know who you're talking to... he's sort of a joke. The big problem with him is that he has no track record in government or even management or leadership. I mean, a CEO would have more credibility and we don't nominate those either.
Generally republicans only nominate people with some leadership experience in government.
Go through the list. Occasionally republicans will nominate someone out of the legislature but that is uncommon. Typically republicans prefer governors or generals or other people with leadership experience.
Carson has no leadership experience and no track record. He's never run anything. You don't put someone in the position of president with no leadership experience. It almost always works out badly.
Are you under the delusion that a senator from Illinious that no one had ever heard from before and hadn't even served more than ONE YEAR in the senate won the presidency for a reason besides him being black?
If Obama had been a white guy, he would not have won the presidency. In fact, he probably wouldn't have even won his senate seat.
Do you deny that?
Again, I was many of the people that put him in office in the first place on that basis.
Responding "what the fuck" to reality is just an admission of ignorance.
You did not answer the question.
Evasion AGAIN confirmed.
All further posts will be taken as confirmation of my initial assumption of your motivations unless contradicted.
You could of course lie to me you know. Many cryptos do that in your position. You get them cornered and they just lie.
I'll probably be able to tell of course. Your nature is very distinctive. I have quite a bit of experience with it and you people aren't unique at all... though you do seem to always think you are... part of your persecution complex.
The last defenders of a misunderstood faith and all that... sort of amusing.
Anyway... you can either respond to my challenge or there is little more to say here. I'm nearly a 100 percent convinced at this point that I pegged you right out of the gate. That Malthus citation... you'll need to watch that sort of thing if you want to get better at being a crypto. You have to use less distinctive citations. Also if you read any communist literature, make sure you don't pick up the terminology of the work. It tends to be unusual and another dead give away.
Best of luck trying to dupe someone else.
I looked for a coherent rational argument in your post... there isn't one.
Please structure your comments in the form of rational comments. Ideally make them logical and falsifiable. Try to use supporting arguments.
What people care about is the car itself. And that isn't getting componentized.
WoW is dead isn't it? I mean... that game is so fucking old at this point. What kind of future can it possibly have. And really, banning people at this point? Why not so many god damn years ago? The gold farmers have been a problem in the game since always. There are literally chinese convicts playing WoW to sell gold to lazy fat kids that are so stupid they'd rather pay someone to lessen the irritation of the skinner box rather than just STOP playing a shitty game.
Sorry... I hate grindy games. I like to game but I do NOT like to grind. The only games I'll play that have grinding are Mobas and that is only because the level progression caps out after about 15 minutes in most cases. Grind COMPLETE.
As to corporate asshats wanting to take it there... they could want to turn the Sun blue if they wanted... they won't succeed.
I haven't that they won't try. I've argued that they'll fail. People fail all the time. Great men. Small men. Medium sized men... everyone fails. And failure is quite likely when one tries to accomplish the impossible.
You have your experience... I'll presume it is accurate out of politeness even though there is no way to validate it. However, it is a mistake to forget your fundamentals. Anything created by one human mind CAN and WILL be outdone by another. The hubris of DRM is that you can give me a puzzle and it will be so complex that I won't be smart enough to unravel it. Even though you were smart enough to construct it.
That is folly.
As to your link about how people should avoid Official patches after jailbreaking their phone... of course. And so what? Once you jail break, you have to use jailbroken roms.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Of course you can't use official releases after jailbreaking. The trick is to grab something with as early a release as possible and then wait for the crackers to break it and release the cracks.
The reason the cracks stop at a certain point is that the crackers aren't interested in breaking every single f'ing release. They don't care at a certain point. If they break it at point X and they used the exploit at point X why are they going to break their heads open trying to help other people get past it when everyone in their community already used the exploit and are just fine there after? Do you see? The cracks stop not because the cracker can't break it but because the cracker has already won and so stops.
Every new iphone gets broken even though every new iphone is using a newer version of the OS. Every time the crackers find new exploits because they need to because the old exploits are patched.
You're really just proving my point here. If you were right then around the iphone FIVE you'd think they would have stopped people from jail breaking their phones. They haven't.
As to the future of a non jailbreakable iphone... that day has not come yet.
Further, who gives a flying fuck about apple anyway? I'm sorry but what can an iOS phone do that an android can't? Anything? I use a android phone that came from the factory entirely unlocked. Motorola doesn't give a shit. You just get the developer edition which at the time was the same price. I don't know if that changed. But I wasn't paying a dime more and I didn't.
I'm not buying locked products and I generally disdain anyone that does. If there were more people like me they wouldn't lock the fucking things in the first place because it would hurt sales too much.
As to MS selling a locked down machine, I'm sure someone will buy it. But companies won't and neither will large segments of their consumer base. So... they can do that if they want but there will always be unlocked hardware for me to use so I don't really care what some idiot buys at walmart.
As to chrombooks, you can unlock those.
As to tiny machines, I'm very glad you mentoned the pi and the ardinio. They're both open source and they both are massively unlocked. What I think you're missing is that there are many different camps on this issue. You have the corporations that want to create monopolies. And then you have the suppliers that just want to sell their crap to as many people as possible. And then you have the corporate users that want machines THEY control utterly. And then you have the much larger than you think DIY community that wants to have total control over every aspect of the machine down to the hardware level.
And the thing is that everyone is going to get what they want.
The monopolists are going to build walled gardens, the suppliers will sell equivilent technology to anyone that wants to buy it, the corporate users are going to get machines they utterly control, and the DIY people are going to get machines they utterly
as to your interest in fixing the problem... then lets hear you talk about how you'd fix it.
*steeples hands* Go on... I'm listening.
I'm clearly not impressed with your moral position, so I think we need to hear about the basis of your complaint. What is wrong with the legal system.
And do have it be applicable to execution please. I'd rather not hear more about the people picked up for weed or the people given bad plea bargains. That was a particularly hilarious rebuttal given that both groups are by definition not sentenced to death.
How do you plea bargain someone into execution? Comical.
I'm listening. What is the problem with the legal system?
No, it means I have to guess... and the fact that he's being evasive means at the very least he is a crypto... That is fact at this point.
The fact that he brought up malthus is highly suggestive that he is some brand of marxist or communist. And thus he is likely a crypto marxist.
I can't be 100 percent sure about the marxist bit... but it is highly likely. Certain ideologies give themselves away based on the types of words they use and the references they cite.
For example, radical libertarians will out themselves by using terms like "obscenity" which is not often used in modern language but was used CONSTANTLY by Ayn Rand... so if you hear "obscenity" over and over in someone's rants then that is suggestive.
There are markers for pretty much every ideology because the foremost writers in each have distinctive vocabularies certain references which are touchstones for each ideology.
So if I hear the same odd word pop up over over and over again that suggests I'm talking to someone from that group. Or if I hear a reference that is typically only cited by a given ideology that is also suggestive.
Think of old Sherlock Holmes. His ability to know a dozen random facts about your life just by looking at you.
That's all I'm doing.
As I said, the unwillingness to answer the question is 100 percent validation of the crypto portion of my judgement which I pegged him with before he was even obviously evasive. I guessed he was a crypto because I he was using marxist references and nearly all marxists are crypto marxists. So... here he is validated as a crypto... and that only strengthens my other assumptions.
This isn't a court of law. I don't have to prove anything because I've not the weight of the court behind me. I can guess and have any opinion I want. This is my current calculation and given that he's refusing to correct me... I frankly think I nailed him right out of the gate. Which is really kind of impressive.
I am getting good at this. :D
Well, not quite. See there is the primary where the base chooses what they'd like from amongst their own party and then there is the general election where each base robotically chooses its own candiates and then tries to convince some portion of the sleepy middle to go join their side.
I think if the democrats permitted anyone to run against hillary in the primary... seriously... then she'd probably be screwed before the general election. I don't see her getting a primary nod if there is really anyone else on the ticket. I don't see that happening though.
The establishment has really railled around hillary and unlike the republicans that are dealing with that whole revolt against the establishment thing... there is no revolt against the establishment in the DNC. So I think it is quite likely that hillery will get nominated.
Jeb has almost no chance of getting nominated. Ben Carson who likewise has no hope has about as much chance of pulling it off... or huckabee or some other hapless candidate that just has zero chance.
The carson issue is kind of annoying because the republicans NEED black candidates but they need to go through at LEAST the kind of vetting that Obama had... I mean, Obama was a senator for like a year or something. So... clearly presidential material. Ben has no political history. Jack. You don't do that... come out of no where and say "hey guys, why not elect me president!"... I mean... come on. Serve in the senate for at least a year first or SOMETHING. I mean... try your hand at mayor somewhere... ideally governor. Governors are generally better presidents because they have some executive experience.
Generals also do really well for some reason. Don't know why... but go through the list... not a lot of duds there.
Anyway, hillary will likely be the democrat nominee. God knows what the republicans are going to do... it is a god damn three ring circus in the GOP field. Most people figure it is one of three guys but who knows.
Point is, whomever it is will hammer hillary on all the stupid shit she refuses to talk about... and that isn't going to go well in the debates. The debates are meaningless for the base. The base has already decided at that point. They're voting for the person with a D after their name or an R. But the debates matter for the people in the sleepy middle that could go either way. And refusing to answer questions is likely to not go down very well in those settings.
So... as long as the republicans don't field a complete asshat... they should be able to win.
The big problem hillary has that Obama didn't have... is that she's not black. Look, I voted for Obama and I didn't even like his politics. I just thought "hey wouldn't it be nice if we had a black president for once... and maybe we can heal the racial divides and hands across America :D"... Literally my thinking at the time. Which Obama has since gone out of his way to make me feel stupid for by doing everything he can run salt in every racial issue he can find and then call anyone that disagrees with him about anything a racist. And he's remarkably gotten away with that. Hillary is unlikely to be able to do the same thing. She's not black. She does have a vagina... but I rather suspect that isn't going to get her as far in the whole identity politics game. There are after all lots of republicans with vaginas... not so many black republicans.
Anyway... it will be interesting. The identity politics will be everywhere. I'd just like to see Hillary deal with the latest round of embarressing details to come out about her conduct... the whole Uranium mine thing is pretty fucking pathetic.
Sure, and just like all big tent parties which is both the republicans and democrats... there are people that actually care about that.
So it is relevant... because they care. I'm not saying they should... but they do.
I mean, there are gay republicans... there is a group called the "log cabin republicans" i think... and they're openly gay and generally support the portions of the republican platform that aren't hostile to gay people.
And yet of course you're going to get a lot of gay bashing people that will attack them and say they shouldn't be there. I think recently they got run out of a CPAC event because the anti gay evangelicals are generally pretty unsavory.
And that is a problem. Because both of the parties are largely victims of extreme elements within both camps.
The repubilcans are victims of the intolerant religious radicals and the democrats are victims of the batshit insane communist fringe. They both influence their factions disproportionately to their size.
The fellow I was responding to is likely seen by most people in his political faction as an embarrassing reactionary. And just as the crazy religious people in the republican party are seen as embarressing nutters... it is just something both parties have to deal with because all votes count equally. Idiots count the same as the wise. Fucktards count the same as the intelligent.
And the human bell curve being what it is, it tends to be more profitable to focus on retards than any other group.
For one thing they're easier to manipulate and influence because they're stupid. And for another they're easier to turn into fanatics. And fanatics FOR your cause are quite useful. Both major parties make heavy use of fanatics.
Any substantive reform of the political system would have to filter such people out of the system more rigiously. First Past the Post is an attempt to filter outliers and it works to some extent. But it doesn't help when the fanatics are simply fanatics of degree rather than persuasion. First Past the Post filters fanatics that believe the moon is made of cheese. It doesn't filter fanatics that hold with the party line but would literally kill in the name of it.
You run into these people occasionally... right and left etc... all sides have them. And they you understand that if they were standing in front of you with a big knife and stabbing you would see their political ends met... they'd stab you right then and feel righteous for doing it.
That sort of thing isn't productive and it is to a large extent what has sadly happened to much of the Islamic world. They're all competing with each other to prove they're more holy than the next guy. And they do that by being more radical and willing to do more crazy shit in the name of their religion.
Zealots are useful as cannon fodder... but little else. The fellow I was responding to is used by his political faction in that same way. the political shock troops... they run in heedless of damage to their own credibility, get torn to fucking shreds but wear out the opposition to some extent... waste rhetorical ammunition and scare the wobbly defenders. Or they sow chaos while more methodical agents are free to move about doing whatever they want because the field is so muddied and chaotic.
And should anyone hold the moderates responsible for the radicals... they'll just say "oh those guys, they're not with me."... its generally tapestry of sadness.
Malthus is only remembered and trotted out by certain ideologies.
As to the validity, he based it on the Irish potato famine. So no, it wasn't valid even in his own time because the only reason the Irish were starving was due to English oppression. Ireland could feed itself just fine. The English were EXPORTING food from Ireland and fucking with land management which created a famine.
Do you know why the Irish even like Potatoes? Because a fun thing the English used to do was ride their horses over the fields of rebelious Irish towns. Want to know something fun about potatoes? Well, if you do that to potatoes they aren't ruined. The potatoes are UNDER the ground. Which means the horses don't destroy the food when the English ride their horses over the crops.
The theory is shit. Yes... if people behave like fucking lemmings then X will happen after time Y. But people aren't lemmings so the theory is shit.
But you're dodging my question. What are you politics?
If you make another response without citing your politics... feel free to not adopt a label and just explain yourself if you like. I'm waiting for it.... if you don't, I have to assume you're being intentionally evasive and I have to guess as to why you're doing that. I will likely conclude that I was just right since I presumed your evasion as a quality of your nature. A crypto-anything is someone that wishes to keep their beliefs secret. If you a crypto communist/maxist then you're not going to want to tell me that... its the crypto bit.
And when you deal with cryptos, you have to do your best to suss out what the fuck they're really after because they won't tell you. They operate through inference and misdirection.
I don't want to argue against what you're PRETENDING to care about. I will look to try and figure out what your real interests are and then I will draw them out.
I don't want to persecute you. I couldn't do it if I wanted to anyway. So there is no risk in just admitting it here. I'm not fucking Joe McCarthy. I'm just not interested in arguing against your pretenses.
Not at all... Do you want me to post some comments from democrat strategists and long time supporters of that party saying hillary is a dud? They're not hard to find, chum.
But if you want to jam your head so far up your own ass that you finally arrive in some magical echo chamber where hillary is a solid candidate? You go ahead and do that. Tell you how it is... isn't trolling.
If you want me to lie to your face and pretend... I can do that for you.
Is that what you want? More people lying to so you aren't made to feel uncomfortable for even an instant when you unrealistic views are subjected to reality?
Okay. I'll lie to you.
Hillary is a really strong candidate and everyone knows she's just going to breeze through the election like it isn't even there. In fact, why are we even having an election? Lets just crown her Queen. :D
That's exaggerated. Such things happen but McCain would have to have gotten a lot of legit votes to bring it to a tipping point. You MIGHT be able to claim that the dems were able to tip it but they weren't enough to bring it across on their own.
This is not a fully formed argument. Can you please clarify your position?
Hmmm... not really. You're just generally dismissing all criticism out of hand. If you were being actually generous you'd not do that.
But you did.
Do you want to talk about any of the specifics because on Benghazi and the emails specifically I don't see how you can defend that.
As to people being afraid of her... Quite the opposite. The republicans are actually quite happy that she's the opposition this time around. Obama was a problem because he could just say "you're being racist" every time you threw something at him. Hillary is trying to play the woman card but it isn't working out so well.
Anyway, if you think Hillary is a solid pick. Then I will just have to let the polls speak for themselves on that one. Both republicans and democrat strategists have said they think Hillary is weak. Most of her media supporters are savaging her for not addressing anything and just going silent. I'm really sort of baffled as to you thinking this is going to end well for her. She's headed for a colossal embarrassing defeat. All the republicans have to do this time around is not fuck up. Which is a tall order for many of them. Republicans are frequently TERRIBLE at politics. Bad public speakers, bad at reading the political tea leaves. Just so many mistakes.
So if that happens she might win. But it is the republican's race to lose if the dems nominate Hillary.
As to some theoretical future where DRM doesn't suck. I'll believe it when I see it. I've seen nothing to indicate that will ever change.
You're basically arguing that you can circumvent the first law of computer security and I don't credit that opinion.
As to software versus hardware, I think you're not understanding the field entirely.
As to not being able to access the innards of the system... they'll likely have diagnostic ports that can be accessed for repair. Lets say the system gets corrupted for some reason and you send it in to get repaired. If it can't be overridden without destroying it then repairs will be more expensive and that will make sustaining warranties problematic. So they're going to maintain backdoors or something to do that. And then all the cracker has to do is find them and use them... or worst case bribe a disgruntled tech at the repair depot to give him the codes. And then everyone's system gets unlocked.
You can't stop it.
And this doesn't even address emulator etc. Why for example do I even need to use your hardware at all? I should be able to run it on another bit of unlocked hardware and handle the abstraction in software.
All things being equal, of course he would.
But all things aren't equal. The "establishment" is just a powerful faction within BOTH parties. It is the establishment pushing Hillary for example.
However, just because the Establishment wants something doesn't mean they're going to get it. Even Jeb's MOTHER said there shouldn't be another Bush in the White house. Process that. He's also not doing well in the straw polls. Seriously ask a republican what they think of Jeb Bush... just ask... seriously... he's not popular.
And there are some reasons for that.
1. Republicans are a little bitter about Bush Jr. They felt he hurt the party's rep and they're not enjoying having to make excuses for him years after he left office. So letting his brother in is not seen as a good idea.
2. Republicans don't like the dynasty idea any more than anyone else. Republicans feel that two Bushes was pushing it and three would just be absurd.
3. Bush's positions are not the popular positions for republicans these days. He's pro amnesty for example which is not popular amongst republicans. He is pro H1-B visa etc which is not popular. He said recently that he doesn't know if he'd order troops into Iraq if he were in the same position as his brother. It is a long list. But the moral of the story is that he is generally unacceptable.
Lets say Hillary for example said she was against the ACA but the Establishment democrats still backed her.
Would she get the nomination?
And before you think that establishment rules the party, I'd point you at Eric Cantor who was very much an establishment republican but ran afoul of the reform wave that is going through the party and was ejected. I believe Eric is working for an investment bank now which most feel validated the ejection because people don't have good feelings about the investment banks these days.
Does any of this make any sense? Jeb isn't getting nominated. He's just soaking up campaign money from dupes in the establishment that think they can steam roll everyone else. I wouldn't worry about him.
Be specific please. When you say most it is little different from all.
Also you don't need to be a democrat to have a legitimate point against hillary.
Just because someone is not of your political camp does not mean they're inherently wrong.
This is just more of that tribalism I was referring to before. This is how primitive people thought and related to each other thousands of years ago.
That people are thinking this way again in the 21st century is fucking pathetic. You can do better.