I'm going to lay everything I have on the line next week by trying to catch a short position on index futures by Monday morning, July 22, 2019. My guess for Sunday is a big dip down, followed by dead cat bounce for somewhere at or near the open Monday morning.
Sell the rallies as long as we are below ES ~8,000 / NQ ~3,000. Would be interesting to see MSFT, for instance, take a 70%-75% haircut in the next X years. [SPX 666 <- 10 years | 3,000 -> ??]
There is nothing scarier to me than primates discovering ways for a sentient brain to be effectively immortal. There is still time to re-examine the implications of this, as such technology is quite a ways off still.
For the life of me, I cannot figure out why this comment by "holyend" is being silently ghosted (censored) / flagged. Can a moderator explain the reasoning for it being flagged? Are curse words disallowed?
This sounds like a good demonstration of how mindless the activity of scrolling through Instagram truly is. (Even a monkey can do it).
It's similar to watching TV or mindlessly browsing the web for non-intellectual activities. Perhaps we should be concerned about the impact of these technologies on our evolution as a species. There does seem to be supporting research for this (sorry for not providing links/ref).
While not a conclusion, the reports of objects that defy the known laws of physics are extensive by this point.
If the incidents are not the result of "alien activity" perhaps the US Military does have supremely advanced technology under wraps and is demonstrating this technology to ambiguously create the idea that it could be "aliens".
> You are conflating untraceable and private. You keep saying two things are different without explaining why you think they are fundamentally different.
The differences are obvious. Encryption isn't the same as microphone placement or privacy expectations in a home or vehicle. The article had nothing to do with microphones, homes, or vehicles. It was about data centers and encryption.
> What do you think about the fact that the US literally has a right to privacy in their constitution?
Again, the discussion is about encryption standards, not constitutional privacy. As I recall, constitutional privacy in terms of the internet, etc, have been explored by policy makers in detail.
> Finally, let's see if you are consistent in your beliefs. Upload an archive of all your emails and chat logs to a public server so that anyone can read them, since having your communication intercepted does not seem to bother you.
Your proposed litmus test has nothing to do with my implied or stated beliefs, at all. Frankly, that you're even proposing such a thing is concerning to me.
> Encryption keeps communication private, talking to someone directly keeps communication private. The analogy is extremely simple, it seems like you are intentionally trying to ignore it.
The analogy breaks down when considering that direct communication in a confined private space is not the same thing at all as creating virtual private / untraceable spaces on a global encrypted communication network, as it pertains to natsec.
> Do you think the government should be able to listen and see all of your communication?
It depends on context. Confined private spaces aren't the same thing as remote communications through the internet or airwaves. Globally deployed mass 2-party strong encryption meant to entirely lock out the ABC's at scale isn't the same thing as not stopping those who seek to use already-available 2-party strong encryption tools. Designing a system that still allows an "in case of emergency break glass" mechanism to stop terrorism/acts of horror is a good, responsible policy.
FWIW, I completely disagree with the actions of Edward Snowden. He should be executed.
It would be something if the NSA really is fighting to give privacy back to the people (stolen by corporate and entrenched government interests) while still being able to protect us. What a tough challenge that must be, to secure our comms while still having a way to perform sigint. God bless patriots who can see the bigger picture.
No, the name of the G7 document is "Combating the use of the internet for terrorist and violent extremist purposes". Scanning the PDF, there doesn't appear to be any discussion about microphones placed in vehicles or residences.
As stated, in my opinion, it's irresponsible to deploy unbreakable two-party encryption at a national/global level. IMO, authorities should have a way to decrypt the encryption used by the masses, when needed.
Further, it's clear that policy makers will typically push for such a mechanism. If such three-party systems are to be deployed, it would further your privacy cause to help to develop such a system, if your efforts to push back without compromise do not bear fruit.
What about developing a three-party system where the third party doesn't have any "master key" (to prevent a single key from compromising the encryption system), and perhaps the third party has something akin to a "slow hash" that is time consuming to decrypt (to prevent bulk real-time decryption by NSA, etc.) but still allows LEO access when truly needed? Maybe the third party's encryption would, in this sense, be much more difficult to decrypt, so that the three-party system would not be significantly weaker than the two-party system?
There is already unbreakable encryption publicly available for those who wish to use it. I personally feel that it's irresponsible to deploy unbreakable two-party systems at any national/global scale.