[barmar]

There are sites like Politifact that fact-check the candidates, and the news vehicles I favor (NPR and The Daily Show) routinely pass these results on. But I think most supporters of the candidates really don't care. In particular, there's been plenty of reporting about how Trump's businesses have not been anywhere close to as successful as he claims, but it doesn't put a damper on his momentum.

[mycroft]

I have a similar question. Why have we set up the News Entertainment industry (WWE can be Sports Entertainment, so...) so that actually finding out truth is farmed off to some other organization, and actually reporting it is left to niche players and comedy vehicles? And why do people put up with this?

I know, I know, the truth is expensive, and their clients know the viewers would prefer panem et circenses. And in many cases, the clients would prefer to pay for it over truth, for exactly the reasons the Roman Empire did.

[mike777]

mycroft, on 2016-March-28, 12:46, said:

I have a similar question. Why have we set up the News Entertainment industry (WWE can be Sports Entertainment, so...) so that actually finding out truth is farmed off to some other organization, and actually reporting it is left to niche players and comedy vehicles? And why do people put up with this?

I know, I know, the truth is expensive, and their clients know the viewers would prefer panem et circenses. And in many cases, the clients would prefer to pay for it over truth, for exactly the reasons the Roman Empire did.

News Entertainment Industry came about when decades ago the news division was expected to be a profit center rather than just an expense, a cost to own a tv network or local station. People put up with it, the vast majority put up with it, because they are not willing to pay for it.


As far as "truth" in a political campaign at some point we don't expect all the truth, all the time so we tune it out. As some point in our lives we accept that all the people don't tell the "truth" all the time. Sometimes this is because we don't know what the truth is, we get it wrong.

[Al_U_Card]

Starting with bread and circus...

[mike777]

See Brussels....no one wants to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.......basically Brussels does not want to send its young boys and girls to Asia and Africa to fight and die...that is the real truth.


the truth is boys and girls in Brussels are not lining up to go fight. People prefer to not see the truth.


lets talk truth are young boys and girls lining up in Egypt tonight to fight radicals? the answer is no.

[Trinidad]

mike777, on 2016-March-29, 00:37, said:

basically Brussels does not want to send its young boys and girls to Asia and Africa to fight and die...that is the real truth.

It seems to me that Brussels is taking a sensible position there.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

Trinidad, on 2016-March-29, 02:23, said:

It seems to me that Brussels is taking a sensible position there.

So sensible that it is difficult to follow the point Mike is trying to make...not for the first time, sadly.

[y66]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-29, 02:43, said:

So sensible that it is difficult to follow the point Mike is trying to make...not for the first time, sadly.

Not really. I think Mike is channeling Edmund Burke here via Donald Trump and Tony Blair: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of ISIS is for good men not to "crush" ISIS ASAP".

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2016-March-29, 09:25, said:

Not really. I think Mike is channeling Edmund Burke here via Donald Trump and Tony Blair: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of ISIS is for good men not to "crush" ISIS ASAP".

No, what he must be saying is that the reason Chile is not suffering myriad terrorist attacks is because Chile sends so many of its young men to fight and die in foreign lands.

[Zelandakh]

y66, on 2016-March-29, 09:25, said:

Not really. I think Mike is channeling Edmund Burke here via Donald Trump and Tony Blair: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of ISIS is for good men not to "crush" ISIS ASAP".

I think you mean Plato here rather than Burke. The quote "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" is often linked with him (and has been since at least 1920) but that is almost certainly erroneous, his words being "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." The earliest known example of the modern form comes from Reverend Aked but the real original is of course "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."

In any case, things have changed a fair bit since the 18th century. Blair did not expect normal civilians to go to war, not only because it is politically questionable but also because it is just not really feasible at the levels of training that would be possible. In a theatre like Iraq, a conscript militia is more harmful than useful. I daresay Trump knows this too and Belgium certainly has little to gain from raising a civilian army and carting them off to Asia, Africa or the Middle East. To blame the "good men" (women?) of Belgium for any successes would be similar, perhaps worse, than blaming Burundi for climate change but with the added effect of leaving thousands dead unnecessarily.

[kenberg]

After both the Paris attacks and the Brussels attacks Hollande said "We are at war". OK, maybe he said it in French. I don't disagree, but it needs more detail. In particular, it does not mean that Belgium or any other place will be drafting citizen armies. It does mean that everyone, from a baby to a grandmother, is potentially an ISIS target. And it does mean that ISIS will continue doing this until we are able to stop them, and it means that stopping them will include, but certainly not be limited to, military action. In short, they will be killing us and we will be killing them. If anyone has a clear idea how to get them to stop killing us without some military activity on out part I am sure the leaders in both the US and in Europe will be pleased to learn of it. I don't know anyone who welcomes war, but there does appear to be a threat out there and I imagine that it has to be addressed.

Certainly one of the issues in the upcoming US elections will be how best to address this threat.

Reading my last sentence reminded me: A day or so after the Bussels attack Wolf Blitzer was on air saying something like "And now we go to [whoever it was] to see how this will affect the US elections". Good God, Wolf, could we bury the people first? But we do need to discuss what to do. Anyone who thinks that the answer is obvious should be ignored.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2016-March-29, 11:32, said:

Reading my last sentence reminded me: A day or so after the Bussels attack Wolf Blitzer was on air saying something like "And now we go to [whoever it was] to see how this will affect the US elections". Good God, Wolf, could we bury the people first? But we do need to discuss what to do. Anyone who thinks that the answer is obvious should be ignored.

The candidates don't let these things wait, the news can hardly avoid keeping up with them.

Like when Scalia died, the GOP leaders started talking about blocking a replacement nomination while he was still warm.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-March-29, 11:32, said:

After both the Paris attacks and the Brussels attacks Hollande said "We are at war". OK, maybe he said it in French. I don't disagree, but it needs more detail. In particular, it does not mean that Belgium or any other place will be drafting citizen armies. It does mean that everyone, from a baby to a grandmother, is potentially an ISIS target. And it does mean that ISIS will continue doing this until we are able to stop them, and it means that stopping them will include, but certainly not be limited to, military action. In short, they will be killing us and we will be killing them. If anyone has a clear idea how to get them to stop killing us without some military activity on out part I am sure the leaders in both the US and in Europe will be pleased to learn of it. I don't know anyone who welcomes war, but there does appear to be a threat out there and I imagine that it has to be addressed.

Certainly one of the issues in the upcoming US elections will be how best to address this threat.

Reading my last sentence reminded me: A day or so after the Bussels attack Wolf Blitzer was on air saying something like "And now we go to [whoever it was] to see how this will affect the US elections". Good God, Wolf, could we bury the people first? But we do need to discuss what to do. Anyone who thinks that the answer is obvious should be ignored.

The only problem I have is that "military action" can mean so many different things. I do not think it the invasion and removal of Saddam Hussein has made the U.S. or Europe safer from terrorism. I do not think you should retroactively try to militarily punish an entire country because its leadership allowed terrorists to hide within its borders as we tried to do in Afghanistan.

This is Obama's greatest feat, IMO. He is smart enough to know that terrorism is not a state's crime but individual actions magnified. Intelligence, special forces, drone attacks, bombing when necessary are all useful in this battle as far as I am concerned. Sending troops - the typical "boots on the ground" call of the U.S. hawk is almost self-defeating, as there must be a useful political motivation with a reasonable chance for a permanent solution for there to be benefit from that type of war.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2016-March-29, 13:34, said:

The candidates don't let these things wait, the news can hardly avoid keeping up with them.

Like when Scalia died, the GOP leaders started talking about blocking a replacement nomination while he was still warm.

I know. But I found the Blitzer comment especially offensive. On wanted phone in no behalf of Belgium and suggest that when 30 some people have been blown to pieces and a couple of hundred more are devastatingly injured maybe, just maybe, we could hold off for a bit on discussing whether this is good for Bernie or Trump or Clinton or bad for Bernie or Trump or Clinton.

It does, however. require some thought. We are going to have a new president, and it would be best if he is not a narcissistic baboon.


On a somewhat related topic: There has been much talk about how the technology has eliminated the need for a court showdown with Apple. So far, everyone seems to have slid past the obvious: Assuming the gov is telling the truth, we now have proof, if proof were needed, that these phones can be hacked. Secure communication seems to be much more a myth than a reality.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2016-March-29, 14:08, said:

On a somewhat related topic: There has been much talk about how the technology has eliminated the need for a court showdown with Apple. So far, everyone seems to have slid past the obvious: Assuming the gov is telling the truth, we now have proof, if proof were needed, that these phones can be hacked. Secure communication seems to be much more a myth than a reality.

Cracking the cell phone in question was never the focus of this debate. (Most knowledgeable folks believed that the government code have cracked the phone had they wanted to)

I work in tech, I work with a lot of lawyers, and I work with a bunch of people who care very much about privacy.

The key issues in this case were

1. Can the government compel a company to do novel work (against the company's interest)
2. Can the government compel a company to speak (against the company's interest)

For those who don't understand the reference to speech:

Code is treated in much the same way as speech
The government was trying to force Apple to write code and then create a digital signature for that code

[y66]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-29, 09:54, said:

I think you mean Plato here rather than Burke. The quote "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" is often linked with him (and has been since at least 1920) but that is almost certainly erroneous, his words being "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." The earliest known example of the modern form comes from Reverend Aked but the real original is of course "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."

In any case, things have changed a fair bit since the 18th century. Blair did not expect normal civilians to go to war, not only because it is politically questionable but also because it is just not really feasible at the levels of training that would be possible. In a theatre like Iraq, a conscript militia is more harmful than useful. I daresay Trump knows this too and Belgium certainly has little to gain from raising a civilian army and carting them off to Asia, Africa or the Middle East. To blame the "good men" (women?) of Belgium for any successes would be similar, perhaps worse, than blaming Burundi for climate change but with the added effect of leaving thousands dead unnecessarily.

I stand corrected on the source of that quote. Thank you.

It’s too absurd for words to suggest that drafting a bunch of civilians and sending them to fight and die in Africa and Asia as was suggested will hasten the end of ISIS sponsored terrorism or that ending ISIS sponsored terrorism will end fundamentalist sponsored terrorism which is also relevant. But somebody is going to have to go, fight and die. Meanwhile, sitting on your ass or worse, with your head up it, while these ISIS assholes, who are known to you, are getting stronger and being pushed harder by their ringleaders, hardly counts as good men doing something, regardless of the source of that quote.

I could be wrong, but I thought that sitting on your ass while others are doing the hard work of trying to figure out how to solve this problem, even if they happen to be the same guys who "own" a big part of this mess, was the gist of my friend from Chicago’s post.

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2016-March-29, 14:24, said:

Cracking the cell phone in question was never the focus of this debate. (Most knowledgeable folks believed that the government code have cracked the phone had they wanted to)

I work in tech, I work with a lot of lawyers, and I work with a bunch of people who care very much about privacy.

The key issues in this case were

1. Can the government compel a company to do novel work (against the company's interest)
2. Can the government compel a company to speak (against the company's interest)

For those who don't understand the reference to speech:

Code is treated in much the same way as speech
The government was trying to force Apple to write code and then create a digital signature for that code

I have hear the argument that the gov just could have dome it themselves and they were just trying to force Apple to do it. My knowledge is limited, but I don't buy it. If they had the ability to do it earler, I would think that they would

a. Not tell anyone they had the phone

b. Not tell anyone that they could get into the phone

c. Get into the phone

d. Make good use of what they found before anyone knew they had access to it.

Item c might require a court order but they could probably either get around that, or ignore that, or have it done with a secret court order.


Another point: I did not hear these comments about how obviously the gov can just do it until after they just did it. A bit like obviously you should have played for the drop after the finesse loses.

Anything is possible, the most bizarre things today seem to be certainties tomorrow, but the idea that the gov could have gotten in but decided to make Aplle do it instead, with much publicity, seems unlikely to me. I gather that Apple plans legal action to require the gov to disclose how they did iy, so maybe things will become clearer down the road. But I would not bet on that.

At any rate, they say someone told them how. I am inclined to believe them. Not on the basis that they say so, I am not that naive, but rather because it fits. Or maybe the NSA was the secret helper which is of course the gov, if they ever speak to each other. Maybe the NSA guy comes over to the FBI guy and says "I can show you how to do this, but you can't tell my boss because I am not supposed to be helping." I could believe that route.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2016-March-29, 15:13, said:

Another point: I did not hear these comments about how obviously the gov can just do it until after they just did it. A bit like obviously you should have played for the drop after the finesse loses.

I did. I also saw at least two well written web sites describing how the government could compromise the security model.
(I've mentioned that I am working for an InfoSec group at the moment, right?)

Quote

Anything is possible, the most bizarre things today seem to be certainties tomorrow, but the idea that the gov could have gotten in but decided to make Aplle
do it instead, with much publicity, seems unlikely to me. I gather that Apple plans legal action to require the gov to disclose how they did iy, so
maybe things will become clearer down the road. But I would not bet on that.

This was a near perfect case for the government to establish a precedent that would be extremely valuable down the road...

[kenberg]

Probably we will never find out for sure.

Anyway, my thought when the gov announced that someone had shown them how to do it was that I guess hackers know how to do it. Even of the gov tells Apple how they did it and if Apple fixes this, I imagine that others will find or have found other ways to get in.

This is a problem for all of us. No self-respecting hacker would waste his time getting into my cell phone, but for many people, and not just terrorists, this seems like a problem. I am glad that the gov can hack into a terrorist's phone, and I don't much give a damn if they hack into mine, but all in all I think we have a problem here.

Not just from the Chines, not just from our own gov, it seems we have a problem.

[mycroft]

the money quote for Apple v. FBI (at least if you want to read about why the tech people are freaking) is [it was] "never about just one phone".

Also, Ken, of course hackers would want to get into your phone. It's quantity over quality, and you have contacts and phone numbers (and probably email addresses) they can use to get more. Even if you don't have embarrassing photos, or banking information, or even your location data so they can sell "Who's not home right now" to relevant people, your contacts might. It's not a question of whether your private information is of worth to crackers, it's a question of how much it's worth.

Really, *everyone* has something to hide from someone. Do I trust the government? Sure. Do I trust all the people working for the government? Not really. Do I trust anyone who may ever get the particular cracking tool (handcrafted by the makers themselves, not just an exploited bug)? Hell no - there are still some people alive who tried to kill me. Am I in better shape than many? Sure, partly because I'm almost an anti-social networker, partly because I tick all the right boxes, partly because "professional IT paranoid" is a good description of my non-bridge job.

And it doesn't require much knowledge of history to know that just because one trusts the government of today doesn't mean that the government of tomorrow won't...be as trustworthy, or treat you as if you weren't as trustworthy.

But yeah, you're probably safer than most.