No. They are just fed up with any moron that thinks they can do better than the actual experts. And while there are not many actual experts, there is an endless supply of morons. Hence this argument cannot hold water at all.
You wish. There are no "cryptographic truths" when you implement anything in practice and, implemented in practice, your "solution" makes things worse. That is one of the reasons why basically nobody competent uses your broken scheme.
But I am not surprised. Amateurs like you think that if you just encrypt right and authenticate right, you are secure. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Crypto is one small building stone in the whole. And no, I am not going to fix your broken idea, I have about 30 years of trying to do that, but crypto-morons like you never listen. They keep insisting on fixing the wrong problem and so will you.
Incidentally, it is called "cryptographic hashing" or a "crypto-hash", the term "cryptographically secure hashing" is not used in the community. Which makes me think you are one of these bright-eyed idiots that have just discovered crypto a while back and have not (yet) discovered that its power is most decidedly limited.
I do not disagree on anything you say. But a cold hard look at Trump shows that he manages to be a lot worse. (which is quite an accomplishment.) He is a narcissistic con-man with an extremely simplified view of the world, no personal morals, and a lose cannon because he actually does not understand things when the get even a little complicated.
I would much rather have a rational criminal in power, than anybody even remotely like Trump. That said, both candidates are extremely bad choices.
Difficult to say. In some sense, if Trump makes it all crash without nuking the planet or worse, that may be preferable to the slow decline that Clinton represents. On the other hand, the slow decline is much, much safer as Trump may actually nuke the planet, maybe even only because he does not understand how things work.
I disagree strongly. Trump has an excellent record as a first-rate con-man. You know, those that rip you off and then vanish to let you pick up the pieces. My guess would be he will do the same as president.
The Tea Party lives in a fantasy world and promises things that cannot be delivered. They are also completely bereft of any morals or ethics. Sure, what they said spoke to many people of the same defective nature and that got their candidates elected. But anything built on their view of the world has no long-term future and that is what makes them a massive problem. On the other hand, the future looks pretty grim anyways, so perhaps the Tea-Party may just an indicator of the problem.
Well, it is more like we have candidate H which will likely not make things massively worse and will likely not destroy the country and the planet. Then we have candidate T with basically the same characteristics, although we cannot be so sure about the destruction-angle. It really is a choice between the plague and cholera, with one being somewhat less bad. What is going to be the real problem in the long run is that both have large factions among their followers which are utter scum. A country with so many people of this type does not have much of a future.
Indeed. This has time and again happened throughout history. There are no simple solutions that work. Either the have massive negative side-effects or they do not work outright.
Indeed. And that is really funny, because Trump is a card-carrying member of the 1%-ers. He will never ever do anything against them.
Anyways, regardless of who makes it, the US will lose big-time. I just think the risks of a really big catastrophe are just quite a bit smaller with Clinton, because at least she is a rational criminal.
Well, Charley Fiorina did pretty badly as well, but I guess these alpha-women must outdo each other. Maybe Meg Whitman can get back into the race again if she manages to kill IBM...
While I know a few quite competent female engineers and scientists, these female CEOs seem to be intent to be much worse than the average male CEO.
They are authoritarian followers, that fight anybody that disagrees with them with violence. They are irrational and dangerous. They are unable to find a middle-ground with others. This is the same type of people that are responsible for countless mass-murders throughout history and have establishes countless totalitarian states. These people are the enemy of anybody not in their camp. And they destroy nations.
What increased frequency? These things have gotten a lot rarer, just the repostings have gotten more. Incidentally, if you happen to be blown-up by a bomb or to be in a mass-shooting, the bunker at home is not going to help you that much....
I completely agree on both counts. In particular, Americans must be the most pathetic cowards on the planet today. Sure, their government found that keeping them in fear is the best way to control the masses, but do you all have to give in so readily?
Indeed. Fascism has a limited lifetime, because it is utterly destructive on the economy in the long run. At some point it fails. You can keep it going for a few decades though, the 3rd Reich demonstrated that. Without another military power to end it prematurely, however, fascism may keep 100 years or longer, just look at North Korea or some fundamentalist religious fascisms like in the Golf region. US fascism (which most decidedly is coming, the precursor police-state is already mostly established) may be, if you people are lucky, a quick collapse within 20 years and then 50 years or so rebuilding. If you are unlucky, it may be 100 years or more of slow collapse instead. Much depends on whether you destroy the rest of the world before the collapse or not. (Hey, better a quick nuclear death than living as a slave, I say.)
Self sufficiency is unattainable today. It is a fantasy of fuckups that kid themselves on how much they are dependent on the world staying reasonably intact.
If you need to panic, you have already lost because you messed up spectacularly earlier. And even if you survive the first instance, the next one will get you. Personality-defects cannot be corrected by features of your home.
Slashdot Mirror
No. They are just fed up with any moron that thinks they can do better than the actual experts. And while there are not many actual experts, there is an endless supply of morons. Hence this argument cannot hold water at all.
You wish. There are no "cryptographic truths" when you implement anything in practice and, implemented in practice, your "solution" makes things worse. That is one of the reasons why basically nobody competent uses your broken scheme.
But I am not surprised. Amateurs like you think that if you just encrypt right and authenticate right, you are secure. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Crypto is one small building stone in the whole. And no, I am not going to fix your broken idea, I have about 30 years of trying to do that, but crypto-morons like you never listen. They keep insisting on fixing the wrong problem and so will you.
Incidentally, it is called "cryptographic hashing" or a "crypto-hash", the term "cryptographically secure hashing" is not used in the community. Which makes me think you are one of these bright-eyed idiots that have just discovered crypto a while back and have not (yet) discovered that its power is most decidedly limited.
I do not disagree on anything you say. But a cold hard look at Trump shows that he manages to be a lot worse. (which is quite an accomplishment.) He is a narcissistic con-man with an extremely simplified view of the world, no personal morals, and a lose cannon because he actually does not understand things when the get even a little complicated.
I would much rather have a rational criminal in power, than anybody even remotely like Trump. That said, both candidates are extremely bad choices.
Difficult to say. In some sense, if Trump makes it all crash without nuking the planet or worse, that may be preferable to the slow decline that Clinton represents. On the other hand, the slow decline is much, much safer as Trump may actually nuke the planet, maybe even only because he does not understand how things work.
I disagree strongly. Trump has an excellent record as a first-rate con-man. You know, those that rip you off and then vanish to let you pick up the pieces. My guess would be he will do the same as president.
The Tea Party lives in a fantasy world and promises things that cannot be delivered. They are also completely bereft of any morals or ethics. Sure, what they said spoke to many people of the same defective nature and that got their candidates elected. But anything built on their view of the world has no long-term future and that is what makes them a massive problem. On the other hand, the future looks pretty grim anyways, so perhaps the Tea-Party may just an indicator of the problem.
Well, it is more like we have candidate H which will likely not make things massively worse and will likely not destroy the country and the planet. Then we have candidate T with basically the same characteristics, although we cannot be so sure about the destruction-angle. It really is a choice between the plague and cholera, with one being somewhat less bad. What is going to be the real problem in the long run is that both have large factions among their followers which are utter scum. A country with so many people of this type does not have much of a future.
Indeed. This has time and again happened throughout history. There are no simple solutions that work. Either the have massive negative side-effects or they do not work outright.
Indeed. And that is really funny, because Trump is a card-carrying member of the 1%-ers. He will never ever do anything against them.
Anyways, regardless of who makes it, the US will lose big-time. I just think the risks of a really big catastrophe are just quite a bit smaller with Clinton, because at least she is a rational criminal.
You are confusing Hillary and her followers.
Better a rational criminal like Clinton than a disconnected-from-reality extreme narcissist with delusions like Trump.
Please do not listen to this person. He is really, really clueless.
So you think she planned to kill the company in the long run to make herself look good in the short run? Makes sense to me.
Well, Charley Fiorina did pretty badly as well, but I guess these alpha-women must outdo each other. Maybe Meg Whitman can get back into the race again if she manages to kill IBM...
While I know a few quite competent female engineers and scientists, these female CEOs seem to be intent to be much worse than the average male CEO.
Naaa, that may drive customers away. Oh, wait....
Indeed. I hope they press on vigorously, because Java becoming unusable would be one of the best things that could happen to the IT world.
They are authoritarian followers, that fight anybody that disagrees with them with violence. They are irrational and dangerous. They are unable to find a middle-ground with others. This is the same type of people that are responsible for countless mass-murders throughout history and have establishes countless totalitarian states. These people are the enemy of anybody not in their camp. And they destroy nations.
He is living in a religio-fascist country with though-police.
What increased frequency? These things have gotten a lot rarer, just the repostings have gotten more. Incidentally, if you happen to be blown-up by a bomb or to be in a mass-shooting, the bunker at home is not going to help you that much....
I completely agree on both counts. In particular, Americans must be the most pathetic cowards on the planet today. Sure, their government found that keeping them in fear is the best way to control the masses, but do you all have to give in so readily?
Indeed. Fascism has a limited lifetime, because it is utterly destructive on the economy in the long run. At some point it fails. You can keep it going for a few decades though, the 3rd Reich demonstrated that. Without another military power to end it prematurely, however, fascism may keep 100 years or longer, just look at North Korea or some fundamentalist religious fascisms like in the Golf region. US fascism (which most decidedly is coming, the precursor police-state is already mostly established) may be, if you people are lucky, a quick collapse within 20 years and then 50 years or so rebuilding. If you are unlucky, it may be 100 years or more of slow collapse instead. Much depends on whether you destroy the rest of the world before the collapse or not. (Hey, better a quick nuclear death than living as a slave, I say.)
Self sufficiency is unattainable today. It is a fantasy of fuckups that kid themselves on how much they are dependent on the world staying reasonably intact.
If you need to panic, you have already lost because you messed up spectacularly earlier. And even if you survive the first instance, the next one will get you. Personality-defects cannot be corrected by features of your home.
Ah, yes. And observe how much good did any "safe"-room or bunker in some other place do to Regan when he was shot.
Or you could live well instead and actually gain something of value...