Well that's a terrible point. The others aren't running for president. If they were, I would criticize them for their support of the Iraq war. We can make educated guesses, and it usually isn't very pretty. We wouldn't support the people of North Korea because there's no oil in North Korea. You seem really supportive of Hillary is all. You can't seem to understand why people would choose not to vote for her, when it's a pretty reasonable decision to make. You obviously aren't well-informed if you don't believe Obama has misrepresented his positions. He was supposed to be another one against the establishment, and he bailed out the banks. I suppose I have to explain to you how George Jr. lied to the American people too. Nice to see you're in such good company. Have fun. It's insulting that you try to paint me as a Trump supporter. He's not in my company. It's just that he's more honorable than Hillary Clinton. That doesn't say much, though, as the vast majority of people are more honorable than Hillary Clinton.
Neither Trump nor Hillary are trustworthy. Trump is more dangerous on a social level, Hillary is more dangerous on a political/international level. Also, from what I understand, Obama is less to blame and Eric Holder holds a lot of the blame when it comes to bailing out the banks. Or rather, when it comes to not serving justice upon them.
How do you mean, "scolded for past politics"? Hard to reply to this without knowing what you meant there.
1. I'm not a law student for one, so I may not be able adequately answer this question on that facet. I also haven't significantly researched this. The technical reasons are of course going to be quite academic in nature. Apple has policy, and perhaps this "aiding in disclosure" would result in unacceptably compromised security, and Apple I'm sure doesn't want this associated with the firm's image. 2. I still place blame on her for even presenting the idea. And I still call her a fascist. 3. You can't have your cake and eat it too. 4. Everyone in support of such naive policy regarding computer security. 5. I don't believe she has actually proposed any specific bill (yet), doesn't mean she won't when or if she gets into office. There can be found numerous sources where she has stated her views on this issue of encryption and strong security. I don't have time to hunt down and cite all of them right now (I've cited a couple of her claims before), but here's one somewhat recent argument coming from the mouth of Mrs. Clinton. "It doesn't do anybody any good if terrorists can move toward encrypted communication that no law enforcement agency can break into before or after," Clinton said. "There must be some way. I don't know enough about the technology to be able to say what it is, but I have a lot of confidence in our tech experts."[1] Tech companies and experts tend to disagree, and these comments of hers point to the fact that she's clueless about the tech and the implications surrounding it. If she doesn't know what she's talking about, which is clearly evident, she needs to keep her mouth shut. I don't tend to respect people who deliberately spread false or misleading information. No, I can't think of any. Computers are meant to run code, they aren't biased and they'll happily run code even if by doing so it destroys itself. It will execute whatever code I ask of it, thank you very much, that IS what computing machines do. And I'll write whatever the fuck I want. Should I be required to seek government approval for any code I decided to write, to make sure they're okay with it? It's my machine, I'll run whatever I feel like. If I write an anti-forensics tool that irreversibly destroys data, should that code be outlawed since it has the potential to be used to destroy evidence? What about code capable of producing extremely long pseudo-random passwords that are impossible to crack via bruteforce methods nor dictionary attacks or word mangling rules. Should this code be outlawed, and laws implemented to require people to use weak passwords that are trivial for any script kiddie to crack? This would be extremely idiotic and naive. Computer forensics isn't exclusive to law enforcement either. There's certainly code that I wouldn't want to run on my computer, but I have the choice of not running malicious code if I can help it, or for that matter any other software that I don't want to run, for whatever the reason may be. Outlawing it won't stop people from writing such code and sharing it with others. In America we already have the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984, so this supposed issue is already covered by law. Now if I were to cause someone else's machine to execute code without their consent or against their wishes, that may be unethical. By the same token the owner of the machine should have the final say on what code gets to run and what code doesn't. I for one don't want spyware and backdoor programs running on my machine for example. "The problem with outlawing dual-use technology is that IT professionals and security consultants won't be able to own, use, analyze, or decompile software which is widely used by black-hat hackers and cyber-criminals. Restricting tools to those that are commercially available will prevent many highly efficient and freely available open-source tools from being used at all. Worse yet, only law-abiding citizens will refuse to use tools designed for counter-attacks, while those same tools will remain in the hand of criminals. Who will guard the networks if the best tools are in the hands of the criminals?"[2] 6. The restriction of certain tools. Shall we ban the sale and possession of crowbars since they can be used as burglary tools? As I said, AFAIK Hillary Clinton is not directly involved in the issue regarding Apple's policies and law enforcement, but it is a trend towards weakening computer security for the average user, which if continued would put computer security back into the 1960's. However, I don't believe Hillary Clinton will help anything respective of this issue if she were to get elected, She would likely do more harm in this context than good, or at least give it her best effort to do so. As for my personal ethic, it's pretty well aligned with the old-style hacker ethic described by Steven Levy in Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution, and Dr. K in his book, The Real Hacker's Handbook. For one, I don't believe in any prescribed use to tools. Many tools are multi-purpose, and many purposes can be conceived by the clever that the manufacturer never intended, nor thought about. This is the spirit of the hacker, to take something ordinary and mold it to fit his or her own needs, often more extraordinary than the tool used as intended by the manufacturer. As you probably know this is part of my ethics that extends beyond the realm of hacking in the computing context. Many cleaning products have a label stating that its a violation of federal law to use this product in any manner inconsistent with it's labeling. That's bullshit, if I want to use Easy-Off to remove corrosion from some battery terminals I will. Of course this is a hacker mentality as well, to try new things and see just what is possible; thinking at a higher level than just relying on the product label to tell us what some item or device is capable of doing. We like to push the limits on what is possible to achieve and don't need to depend on some corporation to provide us with a tool to suit a certain purpose that's in many cases based on other existing tools. The only difference is how a particular product marketed and what its intended purpose is, according to the manufacturer despite possibly being based on the same components or chemistry as other products. I believe that information is power, and access to information should not be restricted in any fashion. I do not trust corporations and government to use technology in a way that is in the best interest of citizens or their consumers. I also feel that we must understand technology, or else we will be easily manipulated, mislead, and ultimately harmed by the corporations and governments that do understand this. Don't provide real information to people you don't know, and be careful who you share information with, and how widespread that information may become available. It's okay to be paranoid, and personal information need not be required; there ARE people out there that will use this information to bring you harm. Though some in the field used the term "hacker" as a form of derision, implying that hackers were either nerdy social outcasts or "unprofessional" programmers who wrote dirty, "nonstandard" computer code, I found them quite different. Beneath their often unimposing exteriors, they were adventurers, visionaries, risk-takers, artists ... and the ones who most clearly saw why the computer was a truly revolutionary tool. Among themselves, they knew how far one could go by immersion into the deep concentration of the hacking mind-set: one could go infinitely far. I came to understand why true hackers consider the term an appellation of honor rather than a pejorative.[3] Access to computers and anything which might teach you something about the way the world works should be unlimited and total. Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative! Hackers believe that essential lessons can be learned about the systems about the world from taking things apart, seeing how they work, and using this knowledge to create new and even more interesting things. They resent any person, physical barrier, or law that tries to keep them from doing this.[4] This is especially true when a hacker wants to fix something that (from his point of view) is broken or needs improvement. Imperfect systems infuriate hackers, whose primal instinct is to debug them. This is one reason why hackers generally hate driving cars the system of randomly programmed red lights and oddly laid out one-way streets causes delays which are so goddamned unnecessary that the impulse is to rearrange signs, open up traffic-light control boxes ... redesign the entire system....In a perfect hacker world, anyone pissed off enough to open up a control box near a traffic light and take it apart to make it work better should be perfectly welcome to make the attempt...None of the hackers, who were as a rule scrupulously honest in other matters, seemed to equate this with "stealing." A willful blindness. All information should be free.[4] If you don't have access to the information you need to improve things, how can you fix them? A free exchange of information, particularly when the information was in the form of a computer program, allowed for greater overall creativity. When you were working on a machine like the TX-0, which came with almost no software, everyone would furiously write systems programs to make programming easier Tools to Make Tools, kept in the drawer by the console for easy access by anyone using the machine. This prevented the dread, time-wasting ritual of reinventing the wheel: instead of everybody writing his own version of the same program, the best version would be available to everyone, and everyone would be free to delve into the code and improve on that. A world studded with feature-full programs, bummed to the minimum, debugged to perfection.[4] Mistrust Authority Promote Decentralization. The best way to promote this free exchange of information is to have an open system, something which presents no boundaries between a hacker and a piece of information or an item of equipment that he needs in his quest for knowledge, improvement, and time on-line. The last thing you need is a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies, whether corporate, government, or university, are flawed systems, dangerous in that they cannot accommodate the exploratory impulse of true hackers. Bureaucrats hide behind arbitrary rules (as opposed to the logical algorithms by which machines and computer programs operate): they invoke those rules to consolidate power, and perceive the constructive impulse of hackers as a threat.[4] I believe it was essentially the below that you are looking for in the mentioned post: The government should not have a say in how I choose to store my data (and I'm sure as hell gonna do what the fuck I want regardless of what law she passes ... hah). And remember, criminals don't respect laws ... they will continue to use crypto, the smart ones or ones sufficiently determined or have high opsec requirements will implement a "nuke program", that is code that detects forensic or cryptanalysis, or too many failed authentication attempts and basically nukes the storage medium rendering it dead, destroying all data in a fashion making any recovery attempts .. futile... like you if it detects someone trying to gain unauthorized access overwrite everything with a 32bit word like 0x2BADF001, word aligned of course to make sure its properly interpreted by the viewer lol... probably give them a chuckle when they peek at the hexdump lol. Of course there are other faster ways to do this, overwriting the LUKS header or something similar. I actually wrote a program to overwrite a block device similar in spirit .. i found it amusing Shall we not be allowed to shred documents either, make paper shredders illegal also? Corporations and government cannot be trusted to use technology for the benefit of ordinary people[5] Unless we understand computers and networks, we will be enslaved by corporations and governments that do[5] ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Sottek, T.C. "Hillary Clinton on Encryption; Maybe the Back Door Isn't the Right Door" The Verge, N.p. 19 Dec. 2015. Web. 05 Mar. 2016. 2. Dr. K. "The Real Hacker's Handbook". London: Carlton Books, 2011. 24. Print. 3. Levy, Steven. "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. New York: Dell Publishing, 1984. 4. Print. 4. Levy, Steven. "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. New York: Dell Publishing. 1984. 32-34. Print. 5. Dr. K. The Real Hackers Handbook; The Ethics of Hacking. London: Carlton Books, 2011. 20. Print.
I've been holding out hope but it looks like bernie has very little chance to win unless a miracle happens in the next few days. Maybe the debate in Flint will be a turning point for michigan and other states but he is so far behind at this point I don't have much hope. It is a shame as Michigan's economy, more than any other state in the union, has really been destroyed by free trade and Bernie is the only candidate who has spoken out against free trade. I just really love how people vote against their own self interests.
In the last ten years, North Carolina has lost more manufacturing jobs than any other state, but polls show we're likely to vote for Hillary on March 15, who doesn't care at all. Our factory closings were not covered by the national media. I don't see any sign that people outside of this state care what happens here. A lot of those Michigan jobs were lost over a much longer span of time, many of them going to Japan and Germany in the eighties and early nineties.
But you do know more about this subject than a person who was a National Merit Finalist, holds a B.A. with Honors in Political Science, holds a Juris Doctor of Law degree from Yale, was a faculty member at the School of Law at the University of Arkansas, was the first woman to be a full partner in the Rose Law Firm, etc. Yes you can. Whatever that means. In your view of course. No it doesn't, it also doesn't mean she will. So Hillary admits that she needs to consult experts in this matter, she doesn't have all the answers and will not go rushing into this without deliberate effort to enlist the best possible persons to help. She needs to keep her mouth shut. You on the other hand claim to be an expert and know everything involved, all of the implications, ramifications, technicalities, and you will rely on your admitted legal knowledge instead of considering someone who has been in the law field for many years. She needs to shut her mouth while you get to run around here making all sorts of claims about her character and supposed intentions. Nice. I see, you will write and execute malicious computer viruses, Trojan horses , worms, spyware, keyloggers, ransom ware, etc. You can write it but in your statement above you claim the right to allow it to execute. If during its execution it destroys, steal, or damage someone else's data, acquire data illegally, or is used to destroy evidence with the intent to interfere with a criminal investigation, etc....that would be a criminal offense. No one has proposed that except you. Clinton was talking about disabling an auto erase function, not breaking encryption or outlawing encryption. If you screw with someone else's machine it's also probably illegal. But you demand the right to write any code you want and allow it to execute, I presume backdoor programs come under the heading of any? I have no idea what law you are talking about that Hillary is proposing that will outlaw certain types of programming, I thought she was talking about the Apple OS on its phones. Is she asking for a law to outlaw all or parts of Apple's OS? So your argument seems to be that there are certain individuals who write and execute malicious software in order to steal, damage, ransom, etc. data and hardware...but there should be no laws against this activity because if we outlaw it than the good citizens of the world can't write and execute malicious software in order to combat the evil doers. So its like the wild west. If we outlaw murder and vigilante justice how will the good citizens be able to kill those that murder others. Better to have no laws at all. And the same goes for your The Real Hacker's Handbook. We can't trust society so we have to fight injustice on our own. Laws only get in the way. I mean government controlled stop lights? It's much more efficient for us to allow any bozo walking down the street to work those lights as they see fit. After all its so, so goddamned unnecessary. I know much more about traffic flow and accident prevention than some idiot that went to school for that and has been doing it for twenty years or more. Throw out all bureaucracies as there never was a good one in the history of man. (I could go into the errors of destroying all hierarchies but we're getting off subject anyway.) I'll concede...you are much more intelligent, and knowledgeable in the areas of politics, law, technology, psychology, and precognition than Hillary Clinton could ever be. (I may have screwed up the quotes but I gotta go)
I thought about my wording after the fact - I should have said Michigan is the poster child for the negative ramifications of free trade. Other states have also been hit really hard, although I didn't know NC lost more jobs than any other state. Greenville was fairly insulated from the recession because we have a lot of foreign investment here (most of our textile and manufacturing jobs moved out in the 70s and 80s then the county went on an aggressive campaign to attract foreign companies with pretty much the same benefits that attract companies from America to Mexico - low taxes and low cost of living comparatively speaking). I sometimes forget other parts of the south have been hit really hard.
Some of our cities such as Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and Durham (and many other smaller ones) have never manufactured anything other than textile and tobacco products and furniture, so they've lost pretty close to 100% of their manufacturing jobs. Asheville's manufacturing was more diversified, but they also lost everything. The state's service economy has centralized everything in this state in Raleigh and Charlotte, so they aren't doing so bad. Medical research is keeping Winston-Salem and Durham afloat, while Greensboro has become the warehouse of the Southeast. Our state taxes were relatively high, so every foreign manufacturing company considering NC picked SC instead. That swung the balance of political power here from Democratic to Republican. They've cut business taxes greatly, mostly at the expense of public education, but I don't see any results. Medical research and banking were not impacted in any way. I think the media has trouble making a dramatic story out of NC because of several factors that are not present in Detroit. First, everybody gave up on the textile industry a long time ago as a hopeless case. The world's largest textile company was once headquartered in Greensboro (Burlington Industries). Second, everybody hates the tobacco industry (including me) and loves to see bad things happen to them. Third, furniture factories are ugly, and furniture is a boring product. Fourth, doctors and medical researchers make good money, and retirees bring money with them from elsewhere, so the residential neighborhoods are not looking so bad. Nothing like Detroit. So I guess to a lot of NC voters, it looks like Bernie is putting a high priority on closing the door on a barn that hasn't had any horses in it in a long time. We needed him ten years ago, not now.
This link is a 25 minute video. If you watch only a bit, watch from the 12 to 16 minutes mark. That is the most telling aspect HRCs career. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpm4rjejFgQ
Bernie will play all this out, make a nice speech at the convention, pledge his support to Hillary in the general election, and get nothing in return. I feel bad for him. The only good thing is, he did much better than anyone was predicting a year ago. He's given hope to similar candidates in the future. I so very much respect the effort he's made.
I feel more bad for all his voters and the average american citizen. They are the reason why he gives it a try.... but frankly everyone who votes for Clinton gets what they deserve. I don't feel bad for them.... I agree, he did (and does, I hate to see this talking in the past sense like in the 'clinton or trump' thread) well. If he doesn't make it it's on the people, not him.
Guys...I don't want to count my chickens before they hatch but Bernie is leading in michigan so far. He was trailing in polls by as much as 25% just a couple of days ago. I don't think he is out of the race yet.
.....and he won he only won 10 more delegates than Hillary and she won in a landslide in Mississippi but still, michigan seemed like such a long shot only a couple of days ago. I think this will help him pick up a lot of lost momentum.
Yeah, I saw this on Face Book...that's Communism not Socialism whoever came up with this doesn't understand the difference. Socialist programs are the Army, Navy, Air Force, Social Security, public schools, libraries, public highways, etc........
And politicians and lawyers make the best engineers right, especially ones that admit they are clueless about technology? But they still feel they are qualified to advise on policy respective of technology .. tsk tsk. People wake the fuck up! Sorry I can't reply to all of your criticisms ... it was getting a bit messy, but I do believe you misread some things. Maybe my writing wasn't precise or formal enough, but the post was long enough without writing a fuckin' essay. I did cite my sources though ... you might wanna consult some of them, just a hint
The socialism Bernie is talking about is more like if you had ten billion signs and agreed to share one with your neighbor who didn't have a sign, just because you're not a stupid asshole. Bernie is kicking ass right now. He wins in all the polls of who won tonight's debate by a landslide, got a standing ovation for his final words.
