Total posts: 4,833
-->
@SkepticalOne
Civil war.That doesn't answer the question. How has the left been inappropriately antagonizing the right?
Insurrection in the CHOP?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If it's a temporary thing make it a rentry tax eh? No of course not, because it's not about any silly loophole.while this would of course also close the loophole, it would also hit people just trying to move to california. Which they don't want. They only want to target the assholes abusing the system.
Reentry, so say only if they had lived in California in the past five years.
Communists think they own everything.I'm not aware of any communists in America. Certainly not in any government role.
Bla bla bla, playing dumb. Gotcha.
most rich people make alot of their money using public funds.
You mean they were paid by the government for a good or service. If the government is getting a bad deal stop giving them money to waste... oh wait they'll physically attack you if you do that.
Bringing us back to taxes.... seems like the snake is eating it's tail. The justification for taxing the rich is because the rich are getting public funds which the rich will continue to receive because the "rest of us" are literal slaves via taxation.
I have an idea! Stop the government from stealing. Then you will still have your money and you won't have to have the government steal it from the rich after the government stole it from you and gave it to the rich.
Best part about this plan? Nobody has any stolen goods so you can tell what the hell is going on. Except that feature is the problem for corrupt politicians/corporations and the communists (that are still communist even if they deny it), because we all know damn well there would still be rich people even without government contracts, and there needs to be an excuse to steal.
They use public infrastructure.
And I've bought a ferry ticket before, doesn't mean the boatman owns me. All prices must be clearly marked, and unless otherwise specified in formal contract final. Anything else is fraud.
In other words, pay for the road with tolls.
They benefit from the free public schooling the state provides etc.
If it's free, why do you claim to be using it as a justification for seizing property?
Trace any economic interaction. The rich pay there way in every conceivable measure the same as the rest of us. The corrupt rich are no different from the corrupt poor morally. The solution to fraud is criminal charges. The solution to government theft is to stop the government from stealing.
There is no moral justification for stealing because of some magic unquantifiable aura of civilization.
Without the state, these people would not have made their money.
Without the state (or at least a state) your mother would have been raped and murdered before she had you, doesn't mean the state owns you.
And yes, that means they should pay their fair share back into the system that helped them make their money.
They did already (excluding fraud and corruption as always). That's what the money means. It's an I Owe You for all the things the rich person provided to others.
You miss the forest for the trees. If you have fed every bird, then you have fed the flock.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Hey buddy, isn't that what the income tax is supposed to pay for?'pay for what exactly?
The imaginary debt to society, where the government of California is magically substituted for society like priests magically substitute for god.
What assets can you move out and not have local capitol gains tax apply to you?I didn't write the law. I did a quick search to see what the point of this law is. My quick research said that in california there is a loophole that allows rich assholes to avoid the local capitol gains tax (which is higher than in other states) by moving out of california before selling the assets.
How in the world is that a loophole? Does someone from Texas need to pay California when they make money?
It sounds like you just don't believe them when they say they're moving out of California. Well you don't get to decide what they identify as ;)
why would you even care about this? The only way this kind of thing could affect you is if you had hundreds of millions of dollars.
Abstract moral principle is the only alternative to savagery. If I was a freeman I would still care about the injustice done to a slave.
So they are dodging california taxes by moving out of state temporarily, selling the assets, then coming back. With an "exit tax" this would no longer work since they'd have to pay anyway.
If it's a temporary thing make it a rentry tax eh? No of course not, because it's not about any silly loophole. Communists think they own everything. A rich person is already a thief in their eyes, at best they're borrowing wealth from society, so when they rich person leaves the communist sees that as making off with all the toys in the sandbox.
That is why they create exit taxes and eventually barbed wire fences.
Here it will fail horribly of course because it's an escalating dynamic where the more you try to trap people the more fear they have and the faster they try to leave. Since California can't actually build a wall without causing a civil war they will drive out all of their productive residents if they actually continue down this path.
I look forward to them trying for that reason, strip the regressive government and parasitic citizens (some not all) of California from the vestages of wealth they did not create or earn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Double R makes good points.but not about water, only a Californian or a arab could think such silly things.Not the least bit silly in Arizona.
You made me do it.
But I'm a liberal (AKA libertarian, AKA someone with a bare minimum of social virtue), so if they want to live in a fucking desert that is their right.
But don't pretend their utterly predictable local resource problems are somehow global.
Next up, the world is running out of breathable air. Only 20% of the atmosphere is actually oxygen. We better watch it. See see! :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Rinconada,_Peru
"Hypoxia is a significant health problem"
Oh we are screwed. We need to stop farming cattle right now because those cows are breathing up all our air!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Also, you cant take people seriously when they say "the earth is going to run out of drinkable water"
You really can't. It paint a vivid picture of someone tragically unaware of the nature of the world they live on despite probably receiving an education containing all necessary principles to infer how absurd the statement is.
It's the authority based epistemology. Sure he read about the water cycle in school, but he thought it was important because a teacher relayed it. He didn't question it so he couldn't confirm it, just as he didn't question it when he saw some insane priest of the man-made climate disaster cult claim that there is such a thing as "running out" on the same planet as the amazon basin.
I believe certain comedian had some advise on this: Don't live in a fucking desert.
I'll add: or learn how to build an aqueduct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Double R makes good points.
but not about water, only a Californian or a arab could think such silly things.
Created:
Posted in:
It doesn't scare me, I hope it accelerates. I'd like to eat beef again before I die.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
1) since the state has invested heavily in your success (tax breaks, incentives etc), they don't want people who used california's resources to build their wealth to just move it elsewhere after leaching off them.
Normal pro-theft bullshit simply being used on even more insane forms of theft. As I have long said there is no limit to what a fallacy can 'prove'.
Hey buddy, isn't that what the income tax is supposed to pay for?
So what is it, the people who stay haven't truly given back to California for its benevolence yet?
2) to crack down on a tax loophole. Apparently they have a higher capitol gains tax than other states. So rich people move their assets out of california before selling it to avoid the capitol gains tax. This would help to prevent that.
You sound like someone who has never had to deal with taxes.
What assets can you move out and not have local capitol gains tax apply to you?
None. There is no such loophole. You buy stock in Japan you have to report it on your federal and state taxes, moving to Iowa doesn't help. Then you just have to report it to Iowa, but that's not really a loophole as much as a "I got the hell out of California".
Created:
Posted in:
6 pages of useless trash. For all the cage rattling about threads preventing the site from growing you would think this petty shit would get a mention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Your position is to hand waive away every piece of evidence showing you're wrong as part of some grand conspiracy.
Since that is your modus operendi I won't waste my time by addressing any of your counter-assertions.
We might be able to debate something non-political or a subject dominated by deductive reasoning but I've seen how you handle long chains of inductive reasoning and there is no point trying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The motivation is what leads to the phenomenon
Only if wishing made it so, which it doesn't.
The difference is that victimization is not central to left wing politics.
Uh huh
That's because most people live in the real world.
No most people live in a low-information world. The left-tribe narrative crumbles under review which is why anyone who attempts to delve into details never makes it onto CNN or Fox.
I know you're part of a small sect comfortable with details but utterly incapable of consistently evaluating relative probability but you're the exception. Most people haven't a clue Biden is guilty of everything Trump is accused of (quid pro quo corruption, hoarding secret documents, sounding like an idiot with zero self-awareness, groping people).
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Because the one thing I've tended to notice on here is that debates normally end up going to the person who has the most popular position, not necessarily the best arguments.
It's almost like that's the inevitable result of a poll and there never was any hope for anything else so long as giant words "winner" appear based on the directly measured popular opinion.
Created:
-->
@Nyxified
In formal debate, you argue the best you can not because you want to convince the other side that they're wrong, but to try and convince a judge that the arguments and information you presented is more convincing than your opponents. It is not to judge what is true--that is the purpose of science and facts.
You got that backward.
Facts are true statements, facts don't produce truth they are truth.
Science is rationality in the context of explanatory hypotheses. It is the best argument in that context.
Debate is the exchange of arguments and arguments are the only rational (by definition) way to judge what is true.
You can convince someone with rhetoric, but it's not debate unless it's founded on a shared foundation of rationality.
Created:
Posted in:
Reddit is worse. I never tried myself, but I could see there was no point because of how many locked posts and banned users I saw just lurking.
@Sidewalker The presence of echo chambers is not in dispute, nor do they solve the problem.
@Intelligence_06 The debate tab is contaminated by the desire to attain reputation and appeal to the prejudices of the membership. If people take it more seriously it hardly reflects well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Slainte
Those living in an echo chamber do not change their minds.
People who have been in orbit never change their minds about the Earth being a sphere.
The state of constant belief has no bearing on...
They are not objective
...Objectivity.
Objectivity is the result of consistently applying all the algorithms implied by rational epistemology. In other words logic fearlessly applied to every proposition and argument even if it contradicts previous or preferred beliefs.
There is not and cannot be any other measure.
So I diasgree, the ability to change ones mind, based on new information and insight is an example of someone not living in an echo chamber.
I took a calcium antacid yesterday. That is new information to you.
What have you changed your mind over as a result?
It is a false test to give you. If you were rational you would not held the belief before now that I never took antacids. Next:
Yesterday I took an antacid and it turned me into a newt (it got better).
Do you now believe that antacids turn people into newts?
No of course not, because you don't believe me. Yet I could be mad enough to believe that if there is calcium in a substance ingesting it implies impending newt-hood.
Objectivity is not believing that I never took antacids or believing that they turned me into a newt. Objectivity is applying the rules of logic to all purported arguments and demanding an argument for a positive assertion that seems to contradict your existing body of knowledge.
A rational person who does face the arguments of others should expect to change their minds about things less and less often. If that did not happen we would have to assume that rationality as a method of discerning truth and falsehood is at best hopelessly slow.
What if I put it this way. Have you changes your mind on something and lost friends over it?
Lost friends over changing my mind? Not to my knowledge. I never had many friends to start.
I've lost potential friends over my beliefs, but that's not what you asked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Slainte
Changing your mind isn't proof you don't live in an echo chamber or proof that you're rational.
All it proves is that you aren't stubborn and that's not the goal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
because right-tribers are not privileged enough to be the victim of the hour.Is that a joke? Today's right wing politics is entirely based on victimhood.You're confusing two different quantities.I am responding to you claiming right tribers are not "privileged enough" to assert such nonsense while ignoring that victimization is the core motivator of right wing politics.
My statement was not about motivation, but phenomenon.
The propaganda machine which continues to be the mainstream culture of the uninformed never applies the same victimhood criteria to right-tribers as it does to left-tribers.
They have double standards, much like yourself. At every turn with relative probabilities the odds are ever in the favor of the left-tribe victim narrative.
Culminating in Larry Elder being called the black face of white supremacy while George Floyd (who killed himself with drugs) becomes a victim of racism (somehow).
If you want an example of this look no further than the response to the leading candidate for the republican nomination getting indicted on federal charges.
Look at the response by the propaganda machine and you will see I am correct. They don't blink an eye at the obvious unequal application of the law.
Trump is the victim of the hour by objective measures, but because he is right-tribe (the dangerous part of the right-tribe actually) he doesn't get to be a victim (according to what the uninformed normies see).
Fear and victimization are the core tenants of right wing politics.
Yes, but they are realistic fears with actual victims instead of collectivist double-think.
Despite the objective reality of their claims they are not privileged (by the left-tribe propaganda machine which includes all traditional institutional sources of information) to be victims.
All of your examples, regardless of whether the victim-hood is justified or not, are of the right-tribe's internal discourse. Uninitiated people do not know the details that lead a right-triber to perceive the injustice because the left-tribe dominates not only their own internal discourse but also the national discourse.
That the right-tribe has any influence at all is an enduring testament to just how bat shit insane the left-tribe currently is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
There's plenty of conservative universities with top-tier programs in many fields
One can go find a safe space but that does not mean they have a significant influence over the culture in general.
If you have to add "conservative" or "not controlled by neomarxist race baiting cultists" to your feature list when searching for a job or a university that means there is a problem.
In Federal Government, you are not allowed to be fired over your political beliefs or expression of them outside of work hours. It is illegal, and lawsuits have been won over it.
Legal fiction. You can and will be fired, they are quite capable of making up some excuse. A left-tribe judge or jury will never take your side, and locales with large public sectors are always left-tribe because that is what the government prefers.
A self-reinforcing cycle, which is why people are being thrown in jail for 20 years for protesting against the left-tribe in DC while protesting against the right-tribe with greater violence did not even result in charges.
It's really not as bad as Conservatives tend to think it is
Then you step out of the closet (or pretend to) in NYC, LA, DC, etc...
10 years ago liberals were more tolerant and less bigoted.
Liberals (like me) are still tolerant, as in true believers in free speech and open debate.
What I've learned is that liberals were fleas that generally attached themselves to the left-tribe for various reasons. There aren't any liberals in the left-tribe anymore.
The tribes are not principled, they are puppets of corruption (the military industrial complex).
When the democratic party opposed the war in Iraq they were controlled opposition run by the deep state to attract and neutralize liberals and peace-lovers.
Now the democratic party starts, joins, and supports wars. The deep state needs the republican party to be controlled opposition to serve the same role, but people like Trump stand in the way.
The deep state uses the apparatus of federal police, intelligence agencies, through large media corporations to take ideological conflicts with independent existence and amplify them provided they have no chance of interfering with the continued theft of wealth from the American people (and the people of the world).
Now I'm rambling I know, but it's very important to understand this. It's not that people are changing, if they seem to change it is only because they had no principles to start with. Sheeple.
It's not that the moral conflicts are fake (like trans indoctrination or police brutality). They are real, but objectivity and solutions are being intentionally excluded to make these issues impossible to find consensus on.
Meanwhile there are more important moral issues that are not permitted to become mainstream; such as global peace and reducing spending.
Look at the actions of congress and it's as obvious as the dawn. They all agree on one thing and one thing alone: Do not interrupt the military spending
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
The right is free to do everything the left is. Just look at Bud Light. Their sales STILL haven't recovered and they "apologized" for their "sin."
The right tribe is free to try, but we're always free to try.
Due to institutional capture (universities, government agencies, large corporations, etc...) there is an enormous zone of suppression where voicing opposition to the adoption of left-tribe agenda in purportedly non-political enterprise is punished, severely if necessary.
Without this zone of suppression and the propaganda machine (it wears the skin of a now destroyed free press) the left-tribe wouldn't have a chance in hell.
There are asymmetries and budlight shows them quite well. Left-tribe attack comes from institutional capture, they put people in high places. The company create a DEI office as a matter of course.
The counterattack, and this is new that the right-tribe has begun direct counter-attacks outside of the political sphere; came from the general population. That's why they call it populism.
But I do agree that there is much more of an oppressive force on the left than on the right. Just the ESG climate 100+ organization that consists of the largest companies in the world makes it extremely difficult to get hired in MOST places if your politics doesn't add up to a quasi-socialist, rights-hating, racist, anti-Christian bigot.
Exactly.
And with doxxing being the "in" thing on the Left these days, even if you've somehow managed to keep your opinions below their radar, and you haven't hurt anybody, it doesn't matter. They'll dox you and ruin your reputation with a bunch of spurious allegations (Covington Boys, for instance) to try to force you to fall in line.
Which is why any attempt to destroy ring encryption systems like cryptocurrency or Tor are a red-line issue with me. Although I respect the defiance of the gun-collecting crowd they can be unfortunately naive when accounting for the full scope of the conflict.
Without communications there is no resistance, no coherence, no truth. Look at what they do with Trump, everyone around him, and anyone trying to actually behave like a journalist should.
If they can ID everyone they can cut off any corrections. They can deep fake somebody raping children. They can pick out the rising leaders of opposition and smear them into oblivion one by one.
All good and well, just don't trust what you read online right? Yet how will you know to act without information?
America is no worse than many other empires of old as far as atrocities go.
America was barely an empire, a loose element of America was imperialistic for like 40 years.
The UK was an empire, and it was the most moral empire in history.
"Imperialism" and "Empire" are perfect examples of what happens to a word when you let people overuse it. It becomes watered down and meaningless. Empire is when an army shows up, demands taxes and the dismantling of local military, and kills anyone who disagrees.
The USA planned and executed no genocides and is one of the very few nations in history that was in the position to annex large amounts of territory and choose not to on moral grounds.
The USA's mid to early history is far less evil (by comparison) than is claimed by the left-tribe while its modern government and recent history is far more evil than claimed.
They certainly do (all the recent book bannings and drag queen event bannings, for example).
All I've seen is banning of porn delivered to children, which was theoretically illegal before they simply didn't want to enforce it.
Now the way the right-tribe obtusely pretends to be unable to differentiate between a pedophile grooming a child to have sex with and a left-tribe cultist indoctrinating a child is reminiscent of the knee-jerk "racist" screams.
Even Tim Pool is doing it now, very unfortunate.
Created:
Posted in:
ebuc is the answer to the question: What would a more dangerously cryptic version of a flat earther look like?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I was a christian. The reason I wouldn't become one again is the reason I stopped being one.
The hypothesis that a god exists which has a message for me personally, can speak to me personally, and yet does not speak to me personally is self-contradictory.
Same point: Faith as a virtue contradicts every time miracles were supposedly used to change the world and people's hearts.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Whether it's activity or cleverness of arguments if this is the best the anglosphere is doomed.
Created:
Posted in:
Of course I have my limits too. Dylan Mulvaney for instance is my anti-Viagra.
All I need to do is think of him prancing through a meadow and falling down while making imitation girl-squeals. Suddenly abstinence makes perfect sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bigdiknazi
Hi guys fck u
Dinner and a movie first please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
because right-tribers are not privileged enough to be the victim of the hour.Is that a joke? Today's right wing politics is entirely based on victimhood.
You're confusing two different quantities.
There is whether a tribe thinks they've been wronged (they always do, if they didn't there wouldn't be conflict).
Then there is whether the left-tribe propaganda machine equally applies coherent criteria for collective victim-hood, which they don't.
The difference between the victimhood narrative of the right-tribe and the victimhood narrative of the left-tribe is that the right tribe's victimhood narrative is based on facts.
The victimhood narrative of the right-tribe in this case is: She was victimized because of her politics. The evidence supports this.
If she was a left-triber and discriminated against because of politics the left-tribe propaganda machine would say: chauvinist.... or racist, or something absurd without a shred of evidence behind it.
The right-tribe understands what's going on. It's a factional conflict between world views and moral theories. The right understands that if a black woman believes in liberty she's on 'our' side. The right-tribe doesn't experience cognitive dissonance when they see a white "country boy" on the democratic ticket (it happens a lot). They don't call him the white face of black supremacy.
The left-tribe by contrast is in a state of constant self-delusion. They don't see, and won't allow themselves to see an ideological conflict. It's a racial conflict they want to see, and they ignore anything that doesn't fit. It's a sexist conflict they want to see, they ignore anything that doesn't fit. It's bigotry against sexual deviancy that they want to see, they ignore anything that doesn't fit (Dave Rubin).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I assumed it was a paradoy of the transparent (to intelligent people) pattern of the left-tribe propaganda machine to affix onto any report or story some claim of group conflict especially where a so called victim group is once again abused.
Restaurant owner reneged on a woman? Must be a chauvinist.
Now of course that isn't the propaganda machine narrative, because right-tribers are not privileged enough to be the victim of the hour.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
@Double_R
I was wrong via overstatement. There have been enumerations. Corrected claim:
Courts have fabricated protected classes that were not enumerated in the civil rights act or the constitution such as sexual orientation.
There is a fundamental subjectivity in distinguishing "creed or religion" from any other pattern of belief or behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Protected classes are arbitrary and not enumerated.
Created:
-->
@Slainte
I find this likely.
I'll be more specific: The chances that this is a technically true nothing-burger are high.
"File transfer program popular with governments and corporations" lol, cybersecurity "experts" are generally clueless but they can be relied on to at least freak out over file transfer systems. They balk at SFTP. Probably a lot of pointless minutia going back and forth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm sure that the sum of millions of similar decisions will be the geographical and economic separation of the nation by political tribes.
Once that happens political separation by some means becomes inevitable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
I couldn't find a left-wing source on this...
The restaurant owner it seems.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You are missing the point. Anyone with the pattern can make a new message lying about the source.
With public/private encryption algorithms they authenticate the source because the source is the only one that can produce messages decryptable by the public key.
Created:
-->
@Nyxified
Again, if you'd like to do a debate on if trans women are women, I'd welcome the opportunity.
Very little in this universe could be more pointless than pretending you can debate a definition.
Two people either accept a common definition or they don't. If they don't and refuse to find another word for the same concept, they don't communicate that concept.
The End.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Bible Duncery®️
It's discovered unicode.
FLEE FLEE FOR YOUR LIVES!
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I feel like a lot of this site (me included) are too quick to make judgments about who people actually are and so it's easier to dismiss their arguments rather than take them seriously and engage in an actual debate.
I know you didn't single me out but I'd like to earn some eye rolls and say that I'm definitely not that guy.
Did any of you see how much rope I gave ebuc on his torus pseudoscience BS? There is a strong possibility it's some kind of bot system, and so are the nicks responding as if he was making sense.
Created:
-->
@Nyxified
The government will be covering the cost of my dick guillotine, actually 👍
You know how to hit a libertarian where it hurts.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Good, they shouldn't exist. They're distractions and temptations to irrationality and dishonesty.The alliances are so hard to tell on this site
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
And if they knew the pattern they could write a different message that could also be decrypted with the same pattern correct?They could write a new different message using same pattern and same meanings.
And a third party with the same pattern (key) would be unable to authenticate that the message came from a single source.
That's taking a step back in cryptography. It's impossible to manage a large network of trust without that feature. Bitcoin would be conceptually impossible.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
When you have two statements that contradict each other. One is wrong.Is there more profound example of missing the point than a white supremacist who says he enjoys Star Trek.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, the receivers would be able to decrypt the message if they knew the pattern
And if they knew the pattern they could write a different message that could also be decrypted with the same pattern correct?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Best.Korea
124345678906541899How is a computer going to translate this?It wont.Because the encryption code cannot be guessed.
We're talking about two different things.
You're talking about closed algorithm encryption and I'm talking about open algorithm encryption.
When you encrypt something in SHA256 the algorithm that encrypted it is not a secret, only the key is.
It needs to be this way, because of the algorithm was also secret there would be no way for the other party to decrypt it even with a public key.
What you are describing (secret algorithm) codes require that the intended recipient has somehow secretly been given the algorithm. The algorithm is the key in this case.
The example of the enigma code was open algorithm because they had the machine. The nazis didn't try to give away the machine, but they knew damn well they would probably lose one. If they knew they would never lose the machine they hardly needed to try so hard with the coding.
BTW the terminology has changed a bit since 1940. I believe they referred to particular encryption algorithms as ciphers in the non-digital context.
A computer would have a tough time with secret ciphers (arbitrary algorithms). It would find it impossible to brute force a bunch of digits because there would be no way to know you've decrypted the message as opposed to seeing a bunch of normal human vocabulary appearing.
However, anything that can have its rules described can be written into a computer. I'm sure there are secret ciphers for digital encryption that utilize offsets and operators as Korea describes.
They are simply useless in the modern context because open algorithm encryption is so damn useful. -> It's incredibly helpful to be able to have receivers who can decrypt the message without forcing you to change your encryption method. When the algorithm is the key, every single reader becomes a potential impersonator.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
computer could brute force in one dayActually, no, the computer cannot brute force this encryption.In order to brute force, computer guesses what each character means.However, this encryption feeds the computer with lots of false characters unrelated to the text.
It's been a long time since encryption compression factor was 1:1, i.e. there is no requirement for each character of the encrypted message to relate to one character of the original message.
The computer cannot make sense out of it. Therefore, it is impossible for a computer to break this encryption.
Then it's time to make yourself rich because you can make a lot of money off a simple encryption that can't be brute forced despite having what a single byte of complexity?
The only way to decode text encrypted this way is to know the code for pattern. Without that, no one can decode it. And code for pattern can only be known to the creator and anyone the creator tells.
They call that the encryption key.
Brute forcing means to try encryption keys at random until the message makes sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
@Sir.Lancelot
[Sir.Lancelot] It's kind of sad that badger is trying to make up for a life of nobody knowing who he is.This thread is the most attention he's received from anyone.
See that's the kind of thing that is liable to happen when you go around making other people's personal life the topic of discussion. They'll do the same to you.
I am so pleased with myself that I have no interest in finding out if Sir.Lancelot is making this up or betraying badger's trust.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I do not seriously engage these clowns because like oro I recognise their "opinions" not as reasoned and amenable to reason but as compulsions.
I'm not saying you have to engage everybody, I'm saying if you don't want to engage or want to engage minimally (such as I do when I point out BoP and leave it at that) there is absolutely no need to make things personal.
I'm not saying all grudges are petty. I'm not saying there is equality of blame as a first principle.
I'm saying that when somebody (you) comes into a forum thread and the first thing you say is mockery of adoption, they're in the mud. Nobody is going to be able to tell they weren't the one who started it and nobody is going to care if they didn't. That's not fighting fire with fire, it's setting yourself on fire and hoping an enemy hugs you.
Maybe you're yourself this is more intolerable than it is. Maybe I've done the same thing before.
In any case you're not making a compelling case for censorship, and that is especially true if you're going to run away because people didn't jump on your witch-hunting bandwagon.
It's like sex, ADOL. Your brain's a maze to be traversed towards orgasm or dopamine injection. You've carved out pathways. Not so easy to make new pathways.
Not sure what "it's" is in this context. Being on a debate site?
Yea I think it's safe to say there is nothing vertebrates voluntarily do that doesn't lead to dopamine in some form. What of it?
Now if truth really is your ultimate end, maybe, but who has truth as an ultimate end with so much else to get hung up on.
What makes it ultimate to someone is that they will painstakingly disentangle themselves from the thorns they're hung up on and keep going.
So I'll point out to Kaitlyn that she's adopted and mad at her genes and feeling inferior and just wanting to make someone hurt. Because that's her truth. It's the maze she's lost in. It's the best thing anyone could do for her to point that out. Anything else is banging your head against a brick wall. That or walking through your own maze.
If you bring it up out of the blue on a public forum, it looks like you're lost in it; the immediate and natural suspicion would be that you invented the maze.
Talking about people's psychology complete with personal facts is a personal conversation.
You obviously think your psychoanalysis of her is a weapon, and that is more disgusting to me than anything I've seen TWS say (and he has said some bullshit along with most of you).
And you're a bit of fun too of course. Never read anyone as deeply poetic about freedom of speech and debate and ultimate truth and no idea too repulsive, as you.
Thank you.
But then it's just very convenient that you also like to fuck your pets.
I fail to see the convenience.
I mean, what are we doing here?
Wasting our time? But then watching the latest cop drama or world cup game is no less a waste. As rare as a true debate might be, I think I've been made a better man by losing some.
Truth could be your safeword.
It's a holy word. Humans need something to be sacred, truth is my god.
The site's a ruin, has been let become a ruin.
Society is a ruin. Debating in good faith should be the size of twitter or tik tok. If it was I doubt we would be spiraling down to another turning of the well of collapse.
Nobody (of any usefulness) scans a site for unacceptable opinions before choosing to join and comment. A debating community needs people who are attracted by things they disagree with (and can articulate the reasons for disagreeing).
There is way more introspection on this site than is warranted. You all keep asking "what are we doing wrong?" "Why isn't the site growing?"
You're doing nothing wrong. The site isn't growing because people aren't into it and even when they are very few can handle multiple online communities simultaneously.
Forums (including those with attached formal debate systems) are like bars. You walk into a bar, that means the next bar doesn't get you. There is little to nothing the next bar can do to get someone out of the other bars.
Just try to serve good drinks, keep people from scaring off the newcomers, and hold on until somebody else screws up.
So, you (personally), just keep calm and carry on. If you've had enough of this site, you don't need to burn your nickname in a ritual. Just close the tab, go outside, and find a smoothie (or something).
Created:
-->
@Slainte
Limited copies of physical paper are far more secure. You dont have the risks attached to computing systems.
What risks of a computing system is greater than the risk of having an unencrypted copy that can be physically stolen?
You can be certain that only certain people have access. CERTAINTY.
You can have certainty that only people with the decryption key have access to a file.
It would hardly help in this case since one of the people with access seems to not care if it's classified or not.
If it had been a file that existed (which I believe is the case if it was important at all), it could be re-encrypted. Or the computer systems with the key that Trump had access to before would be taken from him so that he no longer had access.
Of course he could just take a picture of the documents, which brings us back to the fact that nothing in the world can keep something a secret if someone who was given the secret doesn't care if its a secret.
So there is no CERTAINTY there whatsoever. The only potentially relevant differences are in how easy it is to steal the information.
If there is one copy of a document, then you can control who sees it..
If a file is encrypted then you can control who sees it, a hell of a lot better than a piece of paper in fact because a paper cannot enact counter-measures when someone takes a picture of it.
If there is no digital copy then you eliminate data integrity issues (the document cannot be manipulated) Single Trusted Source.
If there is only one document then it can be replaced with an altered version and no one would have an original to prove it was a fake.
You reduce digital security threats which could include unwanted destruction from an EMP
EMP hardening is straight forward science and optical disc backups are not vulnerable. Also the only way to produce a significant EMP is a specially designed nuclear bomb, and paper is not immune to nuclear fire.
Many top secret programs are not digitized, and people like Manning and Snowden show us why.
I like to prefix those names with "heroes". Heroes like Manning and Snowden.
As for how they got the information, they were or had access to insiders.
a) the nuclear football, and the codes related theretob) designated survivor determination
No idea if this is accurate, but they managed to pry those from Trumps fingers didn't they? Maybe because they were actually critical instead of the white noise of an inefficient paper pushing system which is being weaponized by virtue of the gullibility of the left-tribe masses.
c) state department cables that are designated print only. Those cables automatically get printed and the original digital message is destroyed ass it is printed. It is never sent as an entire digital package.
Any evesdropper would get the entire package simply by listening long enough. Rather this points to the danger of paper, why destroy paper if it's so easy to keep track of it?
The paper is the risk, not the encrypted electronic data.
Quantum computing could develop to the point that in 3 or 4 years, I can break that encryption.
Complicated, won't get into it now.
Oh and one more thing, the most obvious. If there is no digital copy, then it is very hard to prove wrong doing, unless one can access the limited paper versions.
Not following.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, technically, you just need the text, the code and the meaning of letters. You dont need a computer. It just takes a really long time to read lol, so I assume it would be somewhat impractical but not impossible.
Fine, you practically need a computer. Or to be more verbose: Any encryption scheme that could be decoded by hand at faster than one letter per day is an encryption scheme that a computer could brute force in one day.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
“Recent media reports have generated a large number of queries about Presidential records and the Presidential Records Act (PRA). The PRA requires that all records created by Presidents (and Vice-Presidents) be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) at the end of their administrations,” according to the statement released by the National Archives on Friday afternoon.
Don't care. Trump speeds too.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Best.Korea... any encryption scheme can be printed on paper; but no one would do that because a human being can't decrypt it in their brain.
If you need a computer to read the document what is the point in printing it out at all?
Created: