The guns will still be a problem, but not nearly as much without so many people running around trying to shoot other people.
This is where you've got me, mainly. You seem to recognize that guns serve to exacerbate a greater underlying problem and that, even absent guns, that problem will still exist and guns would simply be replaced by another tool -- trucks or bombs, for example. If you've got a plan to work out and solve (or even relive slightly, any improvement is positive) the social issues that make people want to shoot each other in the first place, I'll certainly scrape together what I can, though it won't likely be much at the moment.
Indeed. And black-market guns will still be illegally sold regardless of the restrictions placed on legal sales. That's not an argument, I'm fairly certain you get that; I'm just pointing it out for those who don't.
It's not really a back door if you give someone else the key, now, is it? But we'll go with that for a moment, anyway... If you really want to be pedantic, yes, I painted too broad of a stroke, so let me rephrase: no mathematically sound encryption suitable for the vast majority of use cases can have a workable backdoor.
I've already qualified that statement in a prior post and you did not attack those points, so I'll assume we're on the same page now.
Despite the fact that you're attacking a point I wasn't making, I'll reply.
how does one gun compare to an army? Is it useful against them? How many can you hurt before it is neutralized?
In a world where guns exist, there will be more than one gun available to use against an army; in a world where guns don't exist, your question is irrelevant. However, in your hypothetical world where only one gun exists, it would presumably be quite effective against an army, what with them not having guns and all.
Now let's imagine a backdoor or "Master key". How many times can this be used before it is neutralized? How useful is it to one person against many?
As useful as a gun in the hands of a mass shooter in a sea of unarmed victims. They'll just keep using it until someone with a better arsenal comes along and stops them. We've seen it time and again with all sort of weaponry (not just guns, though we've seen a lot more of that recently) -- even trucks -- what makes you think a master key would be any different? Back on the subject of my point, though, mathematics dictates that such a master key simply cannot exist; that solves the master key debate the very same way guns not existing would solve the gun debate. Decisively.
Do you see the flaw in your argument, or are you too full on NRA kool-aid.
You simply missed the point. As for that NRA kool-aid, it's actually supplied by the CDC. Firearms laws simply are not effective, because universal law dictates that people who are willing to break laws are willing to break laws. Except, of course, for universal laws; we haven't quite figured out how to get around those yet. Wake me up when we do.
That works for one specific type of encryption. In fact, it works for a (relatively speaking) somewhat uncommon type of encryption; we don't have a good way to securely distribute pads to a large number of entities we might want to securely communicate with so, for example, SSL and TLS (think HTTPS) don't use one time pads. For the types of encryption commonly used by the vast majority of the population on a daily basis, whether or not they're even aware they're using it, it simply is not mathematically possible to both be secure and backdoored.
While you probably sent encoded messages to friends using OTP in middle school or high school, spies almost certainly use OTP to decode broadcast messages, and the keyfob that unlocks your car might be using OTP (but if it's more recent it probably uses a challenge-response model), your disk encryption isn't using OTP, your browser isn't using OTP, your bank isn't using OTP, basically nothing you touch on a daily basis uses a one time pad, mostly because it's not a workable solution for those types of communication. The feds want access to all encrypted data, not just that small subset where OTP is a workable solution.
Laws do make reality happen; the math you're referring to is documented as... mathematical law. Of course, when two laws are in conflict, only one of them can make reality and, well, some laws (mathematical laws in this case) fare a bit better in that respect.
That is, laws the universe writes will always trump laws we write. Which, if I may venture off-topic briefly (I'll bring it back home, don't worry), is why gun control laws don't work; the universe has already dictated that, as long as they exist and/or the knowledge required to produce them exists, people who shouldn't have them will find ways to get them. Since there's no way the US military is going to give up their guns, we'll always have guns in the US; and even if I'm wrong and they were willing to give up their guns, we'd need every person in every country in the world who owns a gun or the tools and information required to make them to allow all of that to be destroyed AND anyone with that knowledge to sacrifice themselves -- then guns would no longer exist and gun crimes would go away. The universe has decreed it.
Just as the universe has decreed that no mathematically sound encryption can have a workable backdoor.
So autopilot wasn't on in all the cases thus far where Tesla has said, after examining the logs, that it was on? The thing is, they don't have to lie to avoid liability; they warn you when you turn the system on that you must stay attentive.
I'm not pretending it's irrelevant; last I checked, Canada is not part of the US. I mentioned the Canadian call in order to honestly answer the following question:
How many times has Barriss called in a fake emergency?
I then stated that it is irrelevant in the scope of the post to which that question was asked, which is it as that post stated the following:
Yes, but with the US police "mistakes" seem to be the norm and it is news when one of their innocent victims does not even gets hurt.
It would have been disingenuous of me to outright ignore the Canadian call; it would have been likewise to not also point out that it was irrelevant after I mentioned it. In other words, had I not mentioned that call I would have been called out for that instead, probably also by you; but you knew that already, as did anyone with half a brain who's reading this.
That became true in the eyes of the people long ago; it only follows that it should, then, be true in the eyes of a government which represents the people. It's certainly an interesting time we live in.
Sorry, I didn't re-read the original comment (from over a week ago) before replying and I recalled putting that detail in the first sentence. Since I did not, replace "sentence" with "paragraph" and carry on. As for the scope, it has been the behavior of police in the US in response to the one call he placed in the US since I made my very first comment in this thread; it's not my fault you continually shift the scope in your head looking for an angle to attack. Any perceived shifting of scope on my part has been my attempt to steer the scope back where it started every time you've shifted it. Quite often, yes, someone will mention an irrelevant detail in an attempt to point out that the detail is irrelevant; the irrelevant detail, in this case, is the Canadian call, originally mentioned in TFS.
Again, quit being an obtuse fuck, it's not a good look for you.
Yes, but you don't have to ARREST the buyers, unless you have grounds to believe they knew they were buying stolen goods; they've done nothing wrong. Find them, question them, let them point you in the right direction, but don't arrest innocent people.
Once again, the scope of the discussion includes US police responding to this guy's prank calls. Since US police did not respond to the Canadian call... well... There was one relevant call that we know of; a fact which I point out in the rest of the first sentence you half-quoted. Stop being an obtuse fuck, it's not a good look for you.
Bingo. If someone asks me "how would one dispose of a body" and I happen to know a good way of doing that, I'm fine if I share that information. On the other hand, if they ask "how can I dispose of this body?" I'm best not answering that question and, instead, going to the police. One is simply asking for information which might be used to commit a crime; the other is asking for information which almost certainly will.
It's basically the same concept (though governed by different laws) that allows gun shops to sell guns while requiring them to deny the sale to anyone they believe might be seeking to buy a gun with the intent of committing a crime. Yes, any gun could potentially be used in a crime, but if a guy comes into your shop talking about robbing liquor stores you can be fairly certain any gun sold to him will be used for that purpose.
You can assume whatever the fuck you want, but 5 seconds of research would tell you who I actually am. Tie your identity to what you say and maybe you'll be taken seriously; I usually am after people realize I've done just that.
My original point, and I apologize for not being clear initially and for letting this drift this far off-topic, was that you don't divide the EU's unemployment rate and population by 0.82 along with the value of the Euro when converting to USD. You convert €1.47T to $1.79T by dividing it by the current exchange rate (0.82 -- you'd multiply $ by that to get € as well), but the 8.7% unemployment rate and 511.8M population remain 8.7% and 511.8M.
How quickly you forget. that's two (2) calls right there, 2 (two). Since the US legal system runs on facts, and you just admitted there were two (2) verified cases, proven facts. 2 times, 1 in Canada and 1 in the US = 2.
He'll be charged based on the US call; he may have violated Canada's laws with the second, but they'd have to try him for that, which they can only do if he sets foot in Canada as that's not something for which we'll extradite someone. He's already been charged in Canada and there are warrants out, but that all means nothing in a US court. That call may or may not be raised to show a pattern of behavior but it is still not relelvant to this discussion. Why? It's simple, actually. You see, what you originally replied to (before I came along) was the following:
Yes, but with the US police "mistakes" seem to be the norm and it is news when one of their innocent victims does not even gets hurt.
Now, let me jump ahead and pick apart the rest of your post; I promise it's in the service of making my point and I'll circle back to this once done.
Not a very good attempt at moving the goalposts to focus on the trial part and not the police part you were arguing before.
The goalposts are still right where they were; the Canadian call did not involve US police.
What conjecture? You're the one who originally told us there were 2 calls!
Actually, no. That was TFS; perhaps you should read it again?
And back on to my point...
Since the Canadian call did not involve US police, US police did not have an opportunity to fuck it up; therefore, it is irrelevant to a discussion about the prevalence of mistakes made by US police. He gave them one opportunity to fuck up (that we know of) and they took it. 1:1 = 100%.
Yes, but with the US police "mistakes" seem to be the norm and it is news when one of their innocent victims does not even gets hurt.
Since you seem to like bringing in outside facts when it suits you, it's quite likely he's done it before, since we already know of 2.
That would be why I said "We know of one call he's made in the US and one in Canada." We can assume there were others, yes, but that's purely conjecture. It's a good thing the US legal system runs on provable facts and not just conjecture; only the one provable call in the US will matter in court, so it's only call that's really relevant if we're discussing the trial. Which we are.
Imagine a system that runs on conjecture... All one would have to do is see you make awkward eye contact with a kid, assume you're a child rapist, and report that they believe you've had inappropriate contact with a kid in the past, no evidence necessary. If they make a convincing enough argument, you go to prison. Is that the system you want? Because that's the system you're advocating for.
Smarter people than you clearly realise the value of a currency affects the economy...Show why you think it doesn't
I never said it doesn't, I said unemployment rate and population don't scale with the value of a nation's currency. Perhaps you should parse what that actually means? If I punch you in the face, my fist has affected your face, has it not? Now, consider whether your face scaled with my fist.
You are not just completely naive but willfully ignorant if you think currency values don't affect employment
Good thing that's not what I think, then. Try some reading comprehension.
You think the US is doing better because of Trump, or because it's currency dropped against everyone
You seem to be missing a question mark, and please don't lump me in with Trump supporters.He's not Hillary, but that's all he has going for him IMO.
Even stupider people (RWNJ) know it's true, how come you still don't?
Even stupider people know the difference between affecting and scaling, how come you still don't?
Since we're talking about how police operate in the US, only one of those is relevant
No matter Americans crappy level of education, you should be able to at least get that bit right.
Apparently, reading comprehension isn't big wherever you're from? Get off your fucking high horse. The comment that sparked the question I was answering was:
Yes, but with the US police "mistakes" seem to be the norm and it is news when one of their innocent victims does not even gets hurt.
The call to police in Canada is not a call to police in the US and, thus, does not count toward the total of calls to police in the US. The calls-to-kills ratio for this guy, in the US, which is what we were discussing, is still 1:1 and, last I checked, that is 100%.
The value of GDP measured in $US doesn't depend on the value of $US? How naive can you be?
I didn't say anything about GDP; that was LynnwoodRooster two posts above me. However, if we're talking about GDP measured in USD, clearly it's after counting the fall in currency value as we've converted to the currency which has fallen in value. I didn't think I needed to address something so obvious and was giving the AC to whom I was replying the benefit of the doubt by pointing out that the other factors aren't dictated by currency value.
It's RWNJ standard mantra
And I suppose that makes it fact? You just called the people who tout that "nutjobs" and now you're holding up one of their mantras as your own belief, so.............
Slashdot Mirror
The guns will still be a problem, but not nearly as much without so many people running around trying to shoot other people.
This is where you've got me, mainly. You seem to recognize that guns serve to exacerbate a greater underlying problem and that, even absent guns, that problem will still exist and guns would simply be replaced by another tool -- trucks or bombs, for example. If you've got a plan to work out and solve (or even relive slightly, any improvement is positive) the social issues that make people want to shoot each other in the first place, I'll certainly scrape together what I can, though it won't likely be much at the moment.
If you were running in California, you'd probably get my vote. Just saying.
Indeed. And black-market guns will still be illegally sold regardless of the restrictions placed on legal sales. That's not an argument, I'm fairly certain you get that; I'm just pointing it out for those who don't.
Mathematical law is just observational documentation.
So if the documentation were written differently, that would alter reality?
You have no authority over reality.
I never claimed to; in fact, that was basically my point when I said "laws the universe writes will always trump laws we write".
You're looking for an argument where there really isn't one to be had.
It's not really a back door if you give someone else the key, now, is it? But we'll go with that for a moment, anyway... If you really want to be pedantic, yes, I painted too broad of a stroke, so let me rephrase: no mathematically sound encryption suitable for the vast majority of use cases can have a workable backdoor.
I've already qualified that statement in a prior post and you did not attack those points, so I'll assume we're on the same page now.
how does one gun compare to an army? Is it useful against them? How many can you hurt before it is neutralized?
In a world where guns exist, there will be more than one gun available to use against an army; in a world where guns don't exist, your question is irrelevant. However, in your hypothetical world where only one gun exists, it would presumably be quite effective against an army, what with them not having guns and all.
Now let's imagine a backdoor or "Master key". How many times can this be used before it is neutralized? How useful is it to one person against many?
As useful as a gun in the hands of a mass shooter in a sea of unarmed victims. They'll just keep using it until someone with a better arsenal comes along and stops them. We've seen it time and again with all sort of weaponry (not just guns, though we've seen a lot more of that recently) -- even trucks -- what makes you think a master key would be any different? Back on the subject of my point, though, mathematics dictates that such a master key simply cannot exist; that solves the master key debate the very same way guns not existing would solve the gun debate. Decisively.
Do you see the flaw in your argument, or are you too full on NRA kool-aid.
You simply missed the point. As for that NRA kool-aid, it's actually supplied by the CDC. Firearms laws simply are not effective, because universal law dictates that people who are willing to break laws are willing to break laws. Except, of course, for universal laws; we haven't quite figured out how to get around those yet. Wake me up when we do.
That works for one specific type of encryption. In fact, it works for a (relatively speaking) somewhat uncommon type of encryption; we don't have a good way to securely distribute pads to a large number of entities we might want to securely communicate with so, for example, SSL and TLS (think HTTPS) don't use one time pads. For the types of encryption commonly used by the vast majority of the population on a daily basis, whether or not they're even aware they're using it, it simply is not mathematically possible to both be secure and backdoored.
While you probably sent encoded messages to friends using OTP in middle school or high school, spies almost certainly use OTP to decode broadcast messages, and the keyfob that unlocks your car might be using OTP (but if it's more recent it probably uses a challenge-response model), your disk encryption isn't using OTP, your browser isn't using OTP, your bank isn't using OTP, basically nothing you touch on a daily basis uses a one time pad, mostly because it's not a workable solution for those types of communication. The feds want access to all encrypted data, not just that small subset where OTP is a workable solution.
Laws do make reality happen; the math you're referring to is documented as... mathematical law. Of course, when two laws are in conflict, only one of them can make reality and, well, some laws (mathematical laws in this case) fare a bit better in that respect.
That is, laws the universe writes will always trump laws we write. Which, if I may venture off-topic briefly (I'll bring it back home, don't worry), is why gun control laws don't work; the universe has already dictated that, as long as they exist and/or the knowledge required to produce them exists, people who shouldn't have them will find ways to get them. Since there's no way the US military is going to give up their guns, we'll always have guns in the US; and even if I'm wrong and they were willing to give up their guns, we'd need every person in every country in the world who owns a gun or the tools and information required to make them to allow all of that to be destroyed AND anyone with that knowledge to sacrifice themselves -- then guns would no longer exist and gun crimes would go away. The universe has decreed it.
Just as the universe has decreed that no mathematically sound encryption can have a workable backdoor.
Tesla lies about the logs.
So autopilot wasn't on in all the cases thus far where Tesla has said, after examining the logs, that it was on? The thing is, they don't have to lie to avoid liability; they warn you when you turn the system on that you must stay attentive.
How many times has Barriss called in a fake emergency?
I then stated that it is irrelevant in the scope of the post to which that question was asked, which is it as that post stated the following:
Yes, but with the US police "mistakes" seem to be the norm and it is news when one of their innocent victims does not even gets hurt.
It would have been disingenuous of me to outright ignore the Canadian call; it would have been likewise to not also point out that it was irrelevant after I mentioned it. In other words, had I not mentioned that call I would have been called out for that instead, probably also by you; but you knew that already, as did anyone with half a brain who's reading this.
That became true in the eyes of the people long ago; it only follows that it should, then, be true in the eyes of a government which represents the people. It's certainly an interesting time we live in.
Love your username BTW
Sorry, I didn't re-read the original comment (from over a week ago) before replying and I recalled putting that detail in the first sentence. Since I did not, replace "sentence" with "paragraph" and carry on. As for the scope, it has been the behavior of police in the US in response to the one call he placed in the US since I made my very first comment in this thread; it's not my fault you continually shift the scope in your head looking for an angle to attack. Any perceived shifting of scope on my part has been my attempt to steer the scope back where it started every time you've shifted it. Quite often, yes, someone will mention an irrelevant detail in an attempt to point out that the detail is irrelevant; the irrelevant detail, in this case, is the Canadian call, originally mentioned in TFS.
Again, quit being an obtuse fuck, it's not a good look for you.
I didn't think you were being that unreasonable, but it never hurts to clarify for the larger audience.
Yes, but you don't have to ARREST the buyers, unless you have grounds to believe they knew they were buying stolen goods; they've done nothing wrong. Find them, question them, let them point you in the right direction, but don't arrest innocent people.
Once again, the scope of the discussion includes US police responding to this guy's prank calls. Since US police did not respond to the Canadian call... well... There was one relevant call that we know of; a fact which I point out in the rest of the first sentence you half-quoted. Stop being an obtuse fuck, it's not a good look for you.
Bingo. If someone asks me "how would one dispose of a body" and I happen to know a good way of doing that, I'm fine if I share that information. On the other hand, if they ask "how can I dispose of this body?" I'm best not answering that question and, instead, going to the police. One is simply asking for information which might be used to commit a crime; the other is asking for information which almost certainly will.
It's basically the same concept (though governed by different laws) that allows gun shops to sell guns while requiring them to deny the sale to anyone they believe might be seeking to buy a gun with the intent of committing a crime. Yes, any gun could potentially be used in a crime, but if a guy comes into your shop talking about robbing liquor stores you can be fairly certain any gun sold to him will be used for that purpose.
Can we assume you are just lynwood's sock puppet?
You can assume whatever the fuck you want, but 5 seconds of research would tell you who I actually am. Tie your identity to what you say and maybe you'll be taken seriously; I usually am after people realize I've done just that.
We are discussing this guy's calls to US police. That we know of, yes, this is the only time.
My original point, and I apologize for not being clear initially and for letting this drift this far off-topic, was that you don't divide the EU's unemployment rate and population by 0.82 along with the value of the Euro when converting to USD. You convert €1.47T to $1.79T by dividing it by the current exchange rate (0.82 -- you'd multiply $ by that to get € as well), but the 8.7% unemployment rate and 511.8M population remain 8.7% and 511.8M.
How quickly you forget. that's two (2) calls right there, 2 (two). Since the US legal system runs on facts, and you just admitted there were two (2) verified cases, proven facts. 2 times, 1 in Canada and 1 in the US = 2.
He'll be charged based on the US call; he may have violated Canada's laws with the second, but they'd have to try him for that, which they can only do if he sets foot in Canada as that's not something for which we'll extradite someone. He's already been charged in Canada and there are warrants out, but that all means nothing in a US court. That call may or may not be raised to show a pattern of behavior but it is still not relelvant to this discussion. Why? It's simple, actually. You see, what you originally replied to (before I came along) was the following:
Yes, but with the US police "mistakes" seem to be the norm and it is news when one of their innocent victims does not even gets hurt.
Now, let me jump ahead and pick apart the rest of your post; I promise it's in the service of making my point and I'll circle back to this once done.
Not a very good attempt at moving the goalposts to focus on the trial part and not the police part you were arguing before.
The goalposts are still right where they were; the Canadian call did not involve US police.
What conjecture? You're the one who originally told us there were 2 calls!
Actually, no. That was TFS; perhaps you should read it again?
And back on to my point...
Since the Canadian call did not involve US police, US police did not have an opportunity to fuck it up; therefore, it is irrelevant to a discussion about the prevalence of mistakes made by US police. He gave them one opportunity to fuck up (that we know of) and they took it. 1:1 = 100%.
Yes, but with the US police "mistakes" seem to be the norm and it is news when one of their innocent victims does not even gets hurt.
Since you seem to like bringing in outside facts when it suits you, it's quite likely he's done it before, since we already know of 2.
That would be why I said "We know of one call he's made in the US and one in Canada." We can assume there were others, yes, but that's purely conjecture. It's a good thing the US legal system runs on provable facts and not just conjecture; only the one provable call in the US will matter in court, so it's only call that's really relevant if we're discussing the trial. Which we are.
Imagine a system that runs on conjecture... All one would have to do is see you make awkward eye contact with a kid, assume you're a child rapist, and report that they believe you've had inappropriate contact with a kid in the past, no evidence necessary. If they make a convincing enough argument, you go to prison. Is that the system you want? Because that's the system you're advocating for.
Smarter people than you clearly realise the value of a currency affects the economy...Show why you think it doesn't
I never said it doesn't, I said unemployment rate and population don't scale with the value of a nation's currency. Perhaps you should parse what that actually means? If I punch you in the face, my fist has affected your face, has it not? Now, consider whether your face scaled with my fist.
You are not just completely naive but willfully ignorant if you think currency values don't affect employment
Good thing that's not what I think, then. Try some reading comprehension.
You think the US is doing better because of Trump, or because it's currency dropped against everyone
You seem to be missing a question mark, and please don't lump me in with Trump supporters.He's not Hillary, but that's all he has going for him IMO.
Even stupider people (RWNJ) know it's true, how come you still don't?
Even stupider people know the difference between affecting and scaling, how come you still don't?
Here's a reference.
One call plus one call equals 2 calls.
I'll repeat:
Since we're talking about how police operate in the US, only one of those is relevant
No matter Americans crappy level of education, you should be able to at least get that bit right.
Apparently, reading comprehension isn't big wherever you're from? Get off your fucking high horse. The comment that sparked the question I was answering was:
Yes, but with the US police "mistakes" seem to be the norm and it is news when one of their innocent victims does not even gets hurt.
The call to police in Canada is not a call to police in the US and, thus, does not count toward the total of calls to police in the US. The calls-to-kills ratio for this guy, in the US, which is what we were discussing, is still 1:1 and, last I checked, that is 100%.
The value of GDP measured in $US doesn't depend on the value of $US? How naive can you be?
I didn't say anything about GDP; that was LynnwoodRooster two posts above me. However, if we're talking about GDP measured in USD, clearly it's after counting the fall in currency value as we've converted to the currency which has fallen in value. I didn't think I needed to address something so obvious and was giving the AC to whom I was replying the benefit of the doubt by pointing out that the other factors aren't dictated by currency value.
It's RWNJ standard mantra
And I suppose that makes it fact? You just called the people who tout that "nutjobs" and now you're holding up one of their mantras as your own belief, so.............
Unemployment rate and population don't scale with the value of a nation's currency.