The pin/password isn't used for the encryption? If that is true then the encryption key must be stored somewhere, accessible, which doesn't seem secure. Then the FBI could just dump the encrypted data, grab the key, and use it.
The shooter is foolish. He should have formed a corporation, then conducted the killing spree under the protection of limited liability. "Oh, did some people die? Well, the corporation just liquidated after bankruptcy, so I guess that's the end of the legal proceedings."
I don't understand what the FBI is asking for. I understand they'd like Apple to install a backdoor key for use in the future, but Apple can't add a backdoor to an existing phone which would defeat existing encryption, could it? How could they do that?
If the FBI has the phone, then the FBI has the encrypted data, and they can brute force attack it. But if the data wasn't encrypted using a scheme with a backdoor key, and you don't have the frontdoor key, then what is Apple supposed to do exactly?
"Women in the United States are paid only 79 cents on the dollar compared with men doing the same job"
No. Women in the United States are paid only 79 cents on the dollar compared with men doing different jobs. For equal work, women are paid equally, within the margin of error, in most categories, and equally overall. The reason they only earn 79% as much is because they only do 79% as much work in the paid economy.
My read on Hillary is that she wants all positions of power and influence. That's a fair thing for wonks to want. No problem with that.
But the Presidency is the big chair. She wants to sit in that chair. Being one of nine justices is something that might motivate her after she spends four or eight years in the big chair, but right now she has a plausible claim to being #45, and it's hard to imagine her giving that up.
A strong way to phrase that idea is to insist that corporations don't exist insofar as they are not made out of matter and energy. A corporation can't be weighed, can't take an action, can't appear in a photograph, can't give testimony at a trial, can't be put in prison. It doesn't exist.
And part 2 of the argument is that it is stupid to give human rights to things that don't exist.
Humans have rights, such as the right to practice religion. You can never have that right taken away from you but you can voluntarily give up that right in exchange for something you want even more. When we're talking about corporations, that thing people want even more is called limited liability, or colloquially "harming other people without personal responsibility". If you want to harm other people without personal responsibility, then society asks you to follow some rules. That is perfectly fair, nobody forced the Green family to start a corporation, they did it voluntarily, and if they want to harm people without personal responsibility then they shouldn't be asserting religious rights at the same time.
"As for Citizens United, I do not see any flaws in the ruling. Can you point them out?"
Sure. Here it is:
1. According to Scalia, abortion isn't mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, therefore there cannot be any protections for abortion. 2. Corporations are not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, yet Scalia gave them Constitutional protections. 3. Ergo, Scalia is a hypocrite and his rulings were unprincipled.
Scalia was an asshat, a brilliant legal scholar who shat on the law every time he had the chance, whose decisions are indistinguishable from the screeds of proud bigots of all sorts. America deserves better, and now we're going to get better.
I disagree with you. I think the Constitution does evolve by what it means to us today.
So, golly, how can we settle our disagreement? I have an idea! Let's have a panel of legal experts, chosen by a broad consensus of our national leaders, and that panel will carefully decide which one of us is right.
Yes, SCUSA politics changed with Bork. That is the conventional analysis and I agree with it.
But what that leaves out is that America dodged a huge bullet by rejecting Bork. He was a terrible person, a bad human being, a bad judge, who would have put America through three decades of horror-show decisions. If SCUSA politics had to change because of Bork, then so be it.
Congress figured out how to never take recess, then got their shenanigans approved by courts, so recess appointments are functionally a thing of the past.
"I want society to be stuck forever in the bigotry of our great-great-great-great grandparents" isn't "being apolitical" in my opinion. Those things aren't even related.
That's a fair assessment, but it's also a fair situation. Our politics is very close to a zero sum game today. What policies are wanted by everybody? Not many. Do we all want to reduce abortions? No. Do we all want lower taxes? No. Do we all want poor wage-earners to be able to feed their children? No. Do we all want to educate the next generation? No. Do we all want police to shoot fewer innocent people? No. Do we all want to get entangled in fewer senseless foreign wars? No. Do we all want to saturate society with firearm? No. Do we all want to close down Mosques? No.
America is divided on pretty much every issue. To say that I want my way on some issues is, honestly, the same as saying I want the other team to lose.
Yawn. Knowledge is impossible. You could be a brain in a vat or whatever.
Meanwhile, the rest of us have lives to live, and we can't waste our time rehashing the question of whether everything in our perception is a falsehood.
How do you know that Obama is really the President? Maybe Hillary Clinton really won in 2008, and has been President this whole time, but all media outlets and everyone who really knows is just lying to you. You're being manipulated!
"None of the above" is a good option but only makes sense in an electoral system which can call elections at any time. Oh, there was no viable outcome to this election? Well then have another one in a couple months.
But it doesn't make sense with a Constitutionally mandated strict voting schedule. We'd have to change that.
Slashdot Mirror
For the same reason we teach children to read and write, despite the impact on the careers of scribes.
If my grandpa didn't need to know about computers, then why do my kids?
Oh probably because we educated grandpa to work in coal mines and we don't really want our kids to work in coal mines. Okay, carry on then.
Europe stopped using checks? Crazy, I didn't know that. Is that true? I can't write a check to a friend in Europe?
The same Bill Gates of _NSAKEY fame?
I still don't understanding what is stopping the FBI from brute forcing the encryption.
1. Dump the encrypted data
2. Brute-force attack it
Is #1 impossible somehow?
The pin/password isn't used for the encryption? If that is true then the encryption key must be stored somewhere, accessible, which doesn't seem secure. Then the FBI could just dump the encrypted data, grab the key, and use it.
The shooter is foolish. He should have formed a corporation, then conducted the killing spree under the protection of limited liability. "Oh, did some people die? Well, the corporation just liquidated after bankruptcy, so I guess that's the end of the legal proceedings."
I don't understand what the FBI is asking for. I understand they'd like Apple to install a backdoor key for use in the future, but Apple can't add a backdoor to an existing phone which would defeat existing encryption, could it? How could they do that?
If the FBI has the phone, then the FBI has the encrypted data, and they can brute force attack it. But if the data wasn't encrypted using a scheme with a backdoor key, and you don't have the frontdoor key, then what is Apple supposed to do exactly?
"Women in the United States are paid only 79 cents on the dollar compared with men doing the same job"
No. Women in the United States are paid only 79 cents on the dollar compared with men doing different jobs. For equal work, women are paid equally, within the margin of error, in most categories, and equally overall. The reason they only earn 79% as much is because they only do 79% as much work in the paid economy.
Yawn. "Complying with court orders is slavery." Weak effort, trite, not even believable from a nutter. I assign you zero trolling points.
My read on Hillary is that she wants all positions of power and influence. That's a fair thing for wonks to want. No problem with that.
But the Presidency is the big chair. She wants to sit in that chair. Being one of nine justices is something that might motivate her after she spends four or eight years in the big chair, but right now she has a plausible claim to being #45, and it's hard to imagine her giving that up.
Maybe Obama should nominate Sanders or Clinton right now.
Or, heck, nominate himself, there's no rule against that. Or step down and install Biden as President, then have him nominate Obama.
So many good options for political theater!
A strong way to phrase that idea is to insist that corporations don't exist insofar as they are not made out of matter and energy. A corporation can't be weighed, can't take an action, can't appear in a photograph, can't give testimony at a trial, can't be put in prison. It doesn't exist.
And part 2 of the argument is that it is stupid to give human rights to things that don't exist.
Humans have rights, such as the right to practice religion. You can never have that right taken away from you but you can voluntarily give up that right in exchange for something you want even more. When we're talking about corporations, that thing people want even more is called limited liability, or colloquially "harming other people without personal responsibility". If you want to harm other people without personal responsibility, then society asks you to follow some rules. That is perfectly fair, nobody forced the Green family to start a corporation, they did it voluntarily, and if they want to harm people without personal responsibility then they shouldn't be asserting religious rights at the same time.
"As for Citizens United, I do not see any flaws in the ruling. Can you point them out?"
Sure. Here it is:
1. According to Scalia, abortion isn't mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, therefore there cannot be any protections for abortion.
2. Corporations are not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, yet Scalia gave them Constitutional protections.
3. Ergo, Scalia is a hypocrite and his rulings were unprincipled.
Scalia was an asshat, a brilliant legal scholar who shat on the law every time he had the chance, whose decisions are indistinguishable from the screeds of proud bigots of all sorts. America deserves better, and now we're going to get better.
I disagree with you. I think the Constitution does evolve by what it means to us today.
So, golly, how can we settle our disagreement? I have an idea! Let's have a panel of legal experts, chosen by a broad consensus of our national leaders, and that panel will carefully decide which one of us is right.
Yes, SCUSA politics changed with Bork. That is the conventional analysis and I agree with it.
But what that leaves out is that America dodged a huge bullet by rejecting Bork. He was a terrible person, a bad human being, a bad judge, who would have put America through three decades of horror-show decisions. If SCUSA politics had to change because of Bork, then so be it.
Congress figured out how to never take recess, then got their shenanigans approved by courts, so recess appointments are functionally a thing of the past.
"I want society to be stuck forever in the bigotry of our great-great-great-great grandparents" isn't "being apolitical" in my opinion. Those things aren't even related.
That's a fair assessment, but it's also a fair situation. Our politics is very close to a zero sum game today. What policies are wanted by everybody? Not many. Do we all want to reduce abortions? No. Do we all want lower taxes? No. Do we all want poor wage-earners to be able to feed their children? No. Do we all want to educate the next generation? No. Do we all want police to shoot fewer innocent people? No. Do we all want to get entangled in fewer senseless foreign wars? No. Do we all want to saturate society with firearm? No. Do we all want to close down Mosques? No.
America is divided on pretty much every issue. To say that I want my way on some issues is, honestly, the same as saying I want the other team to lose.
Yawn. Knowledge is impossible. You could be a brain in a vat or whatever.
Meanwhile, the rest of us have lives to live, and we can't waste our time rehashing the question of whether everything in our perception is a falsehood.
How do you know that Obama is really the President? Maybe Hillary Clinton really won in 2008, and has been President this whole time, but all media outlets and everyone who really knows is just lying to you. You're being manipulated!
"None of the above" is a good option but only makes sense in an electoral system which can call elections at any time. Oh, there was no viable outcome to this election? Well then have another one in a couple months.
But it doesn't make sense with a Constitutionally mandated strict voting schedule. We'd have to change that.
What's the point? To avoid systemd, of course.
You are kidding, right?
wut? how is this a diversity story? and would two per week be too much, that's like 1%?
Yeah, that's what they said in the sentence you quoted. "Set your firewall" means the same as "be more deliberate about packets".