Jump to content

Captainant

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    14659
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    6

Posts posted by Captainant

  1. 2 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

    Why is it okay for the press to lie about the President but a mortal sin for the President to lie about the press?  The press has a responsibility to report facts fairly, objectively, and let the audience decide whether those facts deserve praise or condemnation.  What consists of the press now is a bunch of social activists who are presenting personal political opinions and deliberately trying to pass off those opinions as facts in order to persuade the audience to support those opinions.  That is not journalism.  That is propaganda.  

     

    Is some of what Sanders says propaganda?  Sure, some of what every White House press secretary who has ever given a press briefing says is propaganda.  Government without propaganda doesn't exist.  However an honest press would ask questions first and shoot when they get bullshit for an answer.  The press now shoots first and asks questions later.  The media has not cared about the truth since Trump was elected.  All they have cared about is "getting Trump."  Trump is giving them a taste of their own medicine and it makes them despise him even more.

    Listening to Acosta, CNN, the New York Times, and all the other media stooges complain about Trump picking on them is like listening to a bully complain when someone he picks on punches him in the nose.

    Press outlets critical of trump have been receiving death threats and one has been shot up. The president is calling them the enemy of the state and of the people. You don't see how the two could possibly be related and the power dynamic between the two? The press is supposed to be a check on the president, not the other way around. 

    • Like 1
  2. 13 minutes ago, Parliament said:

    Wilson is an insufferable kook...but he's right. We get the heroes we deserve.

    A Federal Judge has halted the distribution of the printer plans, as the lawsuits filed by 8+ State Attorneys General move forward.

    Those judges must have never heard of the steisshand effect. Or understand how the internet works lol. 

  3. 4 hours ago, Orca of Peace said:

    i'm against gun registration or limitations on firepower, but for background checks so felons will have a more difficult time.

    Now with 3D, which can already be downloaded for free, registration/background checks go the way of the horse buggy right?

    Like Parliament said above me, you can legally manufacture a firearm relatively easily. Buy an 80% AR lower, a cheap drill press, and the guide jig and you're off to the races. 3D printed firearms are just a new boogeyman for uninformed gun control advocates to yell at and act like will be the downfall of society.

  4. 1 hour ago, brown water said:

    Honest question. Assuming your correct that there’s less harm than some suggest, what is the potential benefit?  And which of those standards best apply here?  I generally fall in the camp of not restricting harmless activity.   But this strikes me a something that should be restricted in part because I’m not seeing the potential benefit. 

    Banning 3D printed gun schematics isn't really a good precedent to set. It's essentially the government saying "this information is too dangerous for the people to see" which is concerning on its own, but also it's incongruous with previous precedent both digitally and physically for information on how to make dangerous devices. The anarchist's cookbook gives you simple steps on how to make very dangerous devices. There's all sorts of army manuals out in the public domain. There's gunsmithing books and manuals that provide a step-by-step guide on how to make guns. Why should 3D printed gun schematics be treated any differently just because they use a novel tool to construct them?

    • Like 4
  5. 48 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    Somebody talk an option newb out of buying some Nov or Dec VIX calls as partial hedge against some shit hitting the fan over rest of the year.  

    Ah I see you also got access to RH options lol. Buying options on VIX is pure /r/wallstreetbets - you should definitely go for it lmao

  6. 1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

    So he has an entire agency devoted to classifying/regulating firearms.

    And instead he runs to a private lobbyist group whose contributing companies don’t want individuals making their own firearms. 

    As a gun owner and eventual 3D-printer owner, I know he’s gonna fuck this up.

    But it’s gonna make the gun-owning Trumpkins squirm.

    The thing I don't get about the current round of pearl clutching over guns is that it's being framed as "everyone can 3D print a plastic AR15 and shoot up a bunch of children". And on top of that, the 3D printed "liberator" pistol is a single shot design that can only shoot low pressure rounds like the .380 or .22 AND it still has metal in it because it needs a hard material (a steel nail in this case) for a firing pin.

    Nevermind that you could replicate that sort of functionality for cheaper with a trip to the hardware store. You can make a slam-fire 12GA shotgun with a pipe, a cap, and a nail pretty easily.

  7. 1 hour ago, Grandioso said:

    LOL at the people cheering FOR Paul Manafort to beat this rap. emoji23.png I don’t even know where to begin.

    That would be otherwise kind, loving, patriotic folks who watch fox news exclusively and genuinely believe that it IS fair and balanced. My grandmother and FIL are SURE that it's just Mueller being a bully because he listens to those 13 angry democrats.

  8. 22 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

    Once companies realize advertising on Facebook is useless then the whole thing will crash.  P&G quit spending hundreds of millions of dollars on ads on FB and YouTube and it didn't impact their sales at all.

    Most of Facebook's users at this point are olds talking to each other and advertisers hate olds.

    You laugh, but my MIL buys dumb shit off facebook ads on a near monthly basis. I'm sure she's but one of millions doing so

  9. 1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

    If the Trump team did, in fact, leak the Cohen news tonight, then you have to think Trump’s Colonel Jessup moment is coming soon.

    I'm sorry, where's the speculation coming from that Trump's people leaked the cohen news?

  10. 4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    A court can order you to produce documents (data) for a wide variety of reasons.  So yes, if that data is encrypted, you still need to produce it.  You have the ability to fight such an order and your right to avoid self-incrimination is a very good defense.  If a judge agrees with you, you won’t need to produce it.

    I’m on the side that Apple shouldn’t create a process for them to decrypt anything even with a court order.  However that doesn’t mean that govt can’t order you to decrypt it and you could be in trouble if you refuse.  

    What I'm saying is that you can turn the data over that's encrypted. But you absolutely should not be legally compelled to decrypt it if the data was/has always been encrypted. I grasp the argument and valid concern that yall are making - that anyone could just encrypt data and then hand it over to the government and say "nah nah na boo boo" - but I think we're talking about different things.

    I'm arguing that if something only ever existed as encrypted, or was encrypted long before there was valid or warranted legal interest in it, the government has no place to tell you to incriminate yourself by forcing you to disclose what's in it. If a party encrypts data in response with being served a warrant or subpoena and refuses to comply, then I agree there should be punishments and sanctions for that behavior, as they're essentially destroying evidence.

    This is the sort of thing where it's critical and important to have nuance and subtlety of understanding in policy. These small, minute details have breathtakingly broad consequences and repercussions as cryptography and encryption literally make the digital world go round. Fuck, even the wifi signal you're getting all the surly shitposting from is encrypted, and rightfully should be.

  11. 8 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    What happens today when a judge orders you to turn over some documents and you refuse to do so?  

    The difference is that encrypted data can be stored behind a password that only you know and have never written down. The data is gibberish without it. Should the government be able to compel you to self incriminate?

  12. Thing is though - the same techniques used for basic fucking e-commerce and payment processing are what terrorists and bad actors would use for their communications. Should we disallow encrypting our bank records and sensitive legal and personal and business communications just because bad guys could be doing something bad? The position you're "just adding perspective" for is advocating that the state control all communication and that everything always be transparent to them. Nope, no way that could ever turn tyrannical.

  13. Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    Or to put it another way, should people that commit crimes have the right to be beyond the law via encryption.

    It’s a complicated issue. 

    If you commit a crime, you still have your 5th amendment right along with all of your other rights, including the 4th amendment right to privacy. Encryption that is meant purely to destroy evidence through obfuscation is no different from tossing paper records into an incinerator. The government can get a warrant to try and crack your encryption, and they are welcome to try. But they absolutely should not be able to compel you to decrypt files that may incriminate you. And they should not be able to prevent you from having basic info security just for the sake of making law enforcement easier. The state works for the people, not the other way around.

  14. Ultimately this boils down to whether or not you think the state has unlimited and ultimate access to your information. I don't agree that the state should be able to outlaw encryption. It's literally just math that's encrypting and decrypting. You can't outlaw an idea and a concept like PGP (which has since been proven to have flaws, but I digress), despite the government's best efforts to do so.

    If you believe the people have a right to privacy from each other and from the government, then you believe in encryption for all.

    • Like 1
  15. 2 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

     

    I don't see it on my bestsellers page on amazon... I wonder if he's just getting fed more political-type stuff on his recommendations page

  16. 1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    Executive Time

    TFW Amazon has been preemptively collecting the tax for sales directly from Amazon so it literally doesn't make a difference for them.

×
×
  • Create New...