*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5319
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #100 on: December 28, 2016, 05:14:02 PM »
i don't think the problem is that world leaders are gonna take all his tweets super literally all the time.  the problem is that it introduces a measure of unpredictability to our foreign policy.  that world leaders can't be sure whether he's signaling or not is one of the things that makes him so amateurish.  unpredictability and instability are typically bad for foreign affairs.

He'll do more saber rattling via twitter than any other world leader in history.  Knocking North Korea off it's stop spot.

*

Offline Luke 22:35-38

  • *
  • Posts: 382
  • The earth is round. Prove I'm wrong.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #101 on: December 29, 2016, 05:18:51 AM »
i don't think the problem is that world leaders are gonna take all his tweets super literally all the time.  the problem is that it introduces a measure of unpredictability to our foreign policy.  that world leaders can't be sure whether he's signaling or not is one of the things that makes him so amateurish.  unpredictability and instability are typically bad for foreign affairs.

He'll do more saber rattling via twitter than any other world leader in history.  Knocking North Korea off it's stop spot.

Wasn't it was Hillary who said that the nuclear option isn't off the table? And saying we need more nukes isn't necessarily saber rattling against anyone. If I said that I feel that the pocket knife in my, well, pocket wasn't enough for my personal protection am I'm making a threat against you?
Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth"

Scripture, science, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion. Can dumb luck create a smart brain?

Please PM me to explain sunsets.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5319
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #102 on: December 29, 2016, 08:51:56 AM »
i don't think the problem is that world leaders are gonna take all his tweets super literally all the time.  the problem is that it introduces a measure of unpredictability to our foreign policy.  that world leaders can't be sure whether he's signaling or not is one of the things that makes him so amateurish.  unpredictability and instability are typically bad for foreign affairs.

He'll do more saber rattling via twitter than any other world leader in history.  Knocking North Korea off it's stop spot.

Wasn't it was Hillary who said that the nuclear option isn't off the table? And saying we need more nukes isn't necessarily saber rattling against anyone. If I said that I feel that the pocket knife in my, well, pocket wasn't enough for my personal protection am I'm making a threat against you?
She said presidents should never take it off the table as a deterrant, back when she campaigned in 2007.
Trump was more threatening.


Also, I'm not talking strictly about nukes for sabber rattling.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5319
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5882
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #104 on: December 29, 2016, 01:50:18 PM »
i don't think the problem is that world leaders are gonna take all his tweets super literally all the time.  the problem is that it introduces a measure of unpredictability to our foreign policy.  that world leaders can't be sure whether he's signaling or not is one of the things that makes him so amateurish.  unpredictability and instability are typically bad for foreign affairs.

He'll do more saber rattling via twitter than any other world leader in history.  Knocking North Korea off it's stop spot.

Wasn't it was Hillary who said that the nuclear option isn't off the table? And saying we need more nukes isn't necessarily saber rattling against anyone. If I said that I feel that the pocket knife in my, well, pocket wasn't enough for my personal protection am I'm making a threat against you?

If your announcing your purchase publicly to your enemies, then sure it is threatening.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Luke 22:35-38

  • *
  • Posts: 382
  • The earth is round. Prove I'm wrong.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #105 on: December 30, 2016, 03:32:44 AM »
i don't think the problem is that world leaders are gonna take all his tweets super literally all the time.  the problem is that it introduces a measure of unpredictability to our foreign policy.  that world leaders can't be sure whether he's signaling or not is one of the things that makes him so amateurish.  unpredictability and instability are typically bad for foreign affairs.

He'll do more saber rattling via twitter than any other world leader in history.  Knocking North Korea off it's stop spot.

Wasn't it was Hillary who said that the nuclear option isn't off the table? And saying we need more nukes isn't necessarily saber rattling against anyone. If I said that I feel that the pocket knife in my, well, pocket wasn't enough for my personal protection am I'm making a threat against you?
She said presidents should never take it off the table as a deterrant, back when she campaigned in 2007.
Trump was more threatening.

Saying that we need to strengthen our nuclear power is more threatening than saying that we shouldn't take it off the table as a deterrent? To me it sounds more or the same. Not only that but even if she didn't said that this election other have in the Obama administration. You should've heard the generals saying how we would beat Russia (while not directly saying) and all that nonsense.

Quote
Also, I'm not talking strictly about nukes for sabber rattling.

Then what are you talking about?
Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth"

Scripture, science, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion. Can dumb luck create a smart brain?

Please PM me to explain sunsets.

*

Offline Luke 22:35-38

  • *
  • Posts: 382
  • The earth is round. Prove I'm wrong.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #106 on: December 30, 2016, 03:35:16 AM »
i don't think the problem is that world leaders are gonna take all his tweets super literally all the time.  the problem is that it introduces a measure of unpredictability to our foreign policy.  that world leaders can't be sure whether he's signaling or not is one of the things that makes him so amateurish.  unpredictability and instability are typically bad for foreign affairs.

He'll do more saber rattling via twitter than any other world leader in history.  Knocking North Korea off it's stop spot.

Wasn't it was Hillary who said that the nuclear option isn't off the table? And saying we need more nukes isn't necessarily saber rattling against anyone. If I said that I feel that the pocket knife in my, well, pocket wasn't enough for my personal protection am I'm making a threat against you?

If your announcing your purchase publicly to your enemies, then sure it is threatening.
President Trump also said that to Britain and anyone with a twitter account or newsfeed. Your point? Suppose I said that I'm looking to by a gun for my protection on the Internet. At the same time my worse enemy saw that. By me making that statement am I purposely threatening my enemy?
Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth"

Scripture, science, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion. Can dumb luck create a smart brain?

Please PM me to explain sunsets.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5319
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #107 on: December 30, 2016, 06:16:30 AM »
Saying that we need to strengthen our nuclear power is more threatening than saying that we shouldn't take it off the table as a deterrent? To me it sounds more or the same. Not only that but even if she didn't said that this election other have in the Obama administration. You should've heard the generals saying how we would beat Russia (while not directly saying) and all that nonsense.
Which do you think sounds more threatening:
I'm not going to take any options off the table, even the most dangerous I have.
or
I'm going to make myself even MORE dangerous now.

One is the status quo.  The other is escalation.  Which, as we all know from history, results in more escalation. 

Quote
Quote
Also, I'm not talking strictly about nukes for sabber rattling.

Then what are you talking about?
I'm simply saying that, given his track record, he'll likely make a lot of military threats.  Far more than North Korea makes.



President Trump also said that to Britain and anyone with a twitter account or newsfeed. Your point? Suppose I said that I'm looking to by a gun for my protection on the Internet. At the same time my worse enemy saw that. By me making that statement am I purposely threatening my enemy?
Yes.
You are taking one of two stances:
1. You don't have any guns and now you're gonna get one and it's likely because of your enemy.
2. You have a gun and you want MORE guns, also likely because of your enemy and anyone else who crosses you.  I mean, if you think you need MORE guns then clearly you have more than just self defense in mind, which has worked so well so far.  Especially if your enemy has not increased their armament.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2016, 06:26:33 AM by Lord Dave »

*

Offline Luke 22:35-38

  • *
  • Posts: 382
  • The earth is round. Prove I'm wrong.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #108 on: December 31, 2016, 05:34:44 AM »
Saying that we need to strengthen our nuclear power is more threatening than saying that we shouldn't take it off the table as a deterrent? To me it sounds more or the same. Not only that but even if she didn't said that this election other have in the Obama administration. You should've heard the generals saying how we would beat Russia (while not directly saying) and all that nonsense.
Which do you think sounds more threatening:
I'm not going to take any options off the table, even the most dangerous I have.
or
I'm going to make myself even MORE dangerous now.

One is the status quo.  The other is escalation.  Which, as we all know from history, results in more escalation. 

Which as history shows it actually did us good. We aren't glowing because of MAD.
Quote
Quote
Quote
Also, I'm not talking strictly about nukes for sabber rattling.

Then what are you talking about?
I'm simply saying that, given his track record, he'll likely make a lot of military threats.  Far more than North Korea makes.

He really hasn't made any threats (militarily) so far.


Quote
President Trump also said that to Britain and anyone with a twitter account or newsfeed. Your point? Suppose I said that I'm looking to by a gun for my protection on the Internet. At the same time my worse enemy saw that. By me making that statement am I purposely threatening my enemy?
Yes.
You are taking one of two stances:
1. You don't have any guns and now you're gonna get one and it's likely because of your enemy.
2. You have a gun and you want MORE guns, also likely because of your enemy and anyone else who crosses you.  I mean, if you think you need MORE guns then clearly you have more than just self defense in mind, which has worked so well so far.  Especially if your enemy has not increased their armament.
And that's the problem, Russia did increase their armament. Besides, I could want a gun or more guns without ever considering my worse enemy.
Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth"

Scripture, science, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion. Can dumb luck create a smart brain?

Please PM me to explain sunsets.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5319
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #109 on: December 31, 2016, 06:40:35 AM »
Which as history shows it actually did us good. We aren't glowing because of MAD.
Escalation has not done us good.  MAD isn't good either.  But it also means that escalation is pointless if all you're gonna do is not blow up someone anyway.  And we have more than enough nuclear weapons already.  Why would you need more?


Quote
He really hasn't made any threats (militarily) so far.
If you don't count "bomb the shit out of them" and "Go after their families" then sure.  But his track record of knee jerk, reactive statements tells me that he will.  He just hasn't had the need to yet.

Quote
And that's the problem, Russia did increase their armament. Besides, I could want a gun or more guns without ever considering my worse enemy.
True, doesn't mean we need to do the same.
Of course, I think Obama started it back in 2015.

Also:
The reasons you would want more guns are:
1. Because they're cool/I want to collect them.
2. Because I like shooting them.
3. Because I think I need them.

Lets apply that to Nuclear Weapons:
1. Because they're cool.  Not a great viewpoint nor any reason to have more than several thousand.
2. Because I like shooting them.  Kinda scary if the president likes to use nukes.
3. Because I think I need them.  Well... that's a problem, isn't it?


Of course, modernizing the system isn't a bad idea.  Mostly.  But why should we be trying to get MORE weapons of mass destruction?  Shouldn't we be trying to decrease them?

Re: Trump
« Reply #110 on: January 01, 2017, 05:14:18 PM »
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-hacking.html?_r=0

Quote
“And I know a lot about hacking. And hacking is a very hard thing to prove. So it could be somebody else. And I also know things that other people don’t know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation.”
lol.

Quote
“It’s very important, if you have something really important, write it out and have it delivered by courier, the old-fashioned way, because I’ll tell you what, no computer is safe,” Hank Hill Mr. Trump said.
our next president.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5319
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #111 on: January 01, 2017, 05:22:18 PM »
It's true.
A courier can't be hacked, taken over, or intercepted like a computer can.  It's the safest way to transmit data.  Trump is wise.

*

Offline Parsifal

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5893
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #112 on: January 01, 2017, 05:38:43 PM »
Trump is actually correct. This is why IT professionals working with cryptography will only ever use keys exchanged in person to encrypt messages. If you're sending an important message to someone you haven't already exchanged keys with, the safest way to deliver it is to avoid the use of computers at any point.

The reason is simple. The Internet, and even a single computer, is an immensely complex system that requires deep technical knowledge (to an extent that even the majority of computer scientists would not have it all) to understand entirely. On the other hand, a human courier carrying a handwritten note is a simple system that our brains have been used to coping with for millennia.

Regardless of what the chances are of the message being intercepted, it's far easier to know that it got intercepted with a courier. Knowing when your system has failed you is just as important as ensuring it doesn't.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

Re: Trump
« Reply #113 on: January 01, 2017, 06:46:55 PM »
i definitely can't speak to the technical aspects, but i do think his statement makes some naive assumptions about the security of analog communication.  humans have been espionage-ing analog communication for way longer than we have digital, and we're good at it.

for another thing, though, neither the intelligence community, nor any other organization as large as the dnc, can anymore operate using analog communication.  there's just too much data, and a significant amount of that data can't very easily be communicated in writing.

if we're just talking about using analog messages to send the very most important messages, like cipher keys in your example, then what you're saying makes a ton of sense to me; but, my understanding is that the dnc hacks were allegedly done through phishing links/social engineering/whatever, and i dunno that couriers would solve that (except to the extent that a single courier isn't going to carry 30,000 emails, but then we're back to the practicality of it).  i feel like the solution is better training for the humans using the computers, not getting rid of the computers, so to speak.

i'm also mildly skeptical that detecting a compromised courier network is easier than detecting as compromised digital network.  not saying you're wrong, just that intuitively it's easy for me to imagine ways of compromising a person without leaving an identifiable trace or physical clue; i would think it's comparatively difficult to compromise a digital network without leaving a clue.  the computer side of that is literally just speculation on my part, but i think you're underestimating how good people are at spying on people.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Luke 22:35-38

  • *
  • Posts: 382
  • The earth is round. Prove I'm wrong.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #114 on: January 02, 2017, 02:20:23 AM »
Which as history shows it actually did us good. We aren't glowing because of MAD.
Escalation has not done us good.  MAD isn't good either.  But it also means that escalation is pointless if all you're gonna do is not blow up someone anyway.  And we have more than enough nuclear weapons already.  Why would you need more?

We don't have enough nukes. Russia can not only neutralize our entire arsenal using conventional (in nuclear terms) methods but they have enough to counter strike.

Quote
Quote
He really hasn't made any threats (militarily) so far.
If you don't count "bomb the shit out of them" and "Go after their families" then sure.  But his track record of knee jerk, reactive statements tells me that he will.  He just hasn't had the need to yet.

I forgot about those but good thing us and Russia have a common enemy

Quote
Quote
And that's the problem, Russia did increase their armament. Besides, I could want a gun or more guns without ever considering my worse enemy.
True, doesn't mean we need to do the same.
Of course, I think Obama started it back in 2015.

Also:
The reasons you would want more guns are:
1. Because they're cool/I want to collect them.
2. Because I like shooting them.
3. Because I think I need them.

Lets apply that to Nuclear Weapons:
1. Because they're cool.  Not a great viewpoint nor any reason to have more than several thousand.
2. Because I like shooting them.  Kinda scary if the president likes to use nukes.
3. Because I think I need them.  Well... that's a problem, isn't it?

It depends on what you need them for. If its just for deterrence then I see no harm in getting more nukes. However if its for offensive use then I see a problem.

Quote
Of course, modernizing the system isn't a bad idea.  Mostly.  But why should we be trying to get MORE weapons of mass destruction?  Shouldn't we be trying to decrease them?

We should if they become obsolete to the new weapon on the horizon like a Death Star.
Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth"

Scripture, science, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion. Can dumb luck create a smart brain?

Please PM me to explain sunsets.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5319
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #115 on: January 04, 2017, 10:00:41 AM »
We don't have enough nukes. Russia can not only neutralize our entire arsenal using conventional (in nuclear terms) methods but they have enough to counter strike.
An extra 700 warheads is really going to make that kind of difference?  We've got 7,300 warheads.  They have 8,000.  Why do we need more?  If both countries fired all their weapons at once, everyone would die.  It really wouldn't matter if Russia can neutralize and counter strike.  They wouldn't be able to neutralize our bases before WE counter strike, and thus M.A.D.

Quote
I forgot about those but good thing us and Russia have a common enemy
Russia's enemy is not the same as ours.... Crimea isn't our enemy but it is Russia's.


Quote
Quote
Of course, modernizing the system isn't a bad idea.  Mostly.  But why should we be trying to get MORE weapons of mass destruction?  Shouldn't we be trying to decrease them?

We should if they become obsolete to the new weapon on the horizon like a Death Star.
Sure but doesn't mean you need MORE, just an upgrade.  You can modernize without increasing your supply.  And if they're obsolete anyway, you should just decommission them, right?

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5319
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #116 on: January 04, 2017, 10:11:12 AM »
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/us/politics/trump-russian-hacking.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0

So... Trump said he's not revealing anything because the intelligence agency is delaying on briefing him about the hacking.

Said intelligence agency is politely asking WTF he's talking about as there was no meeting scheduled until Friday.


Oh and China's telling Trump to stop trolling N.Korea with tweets. 

Hey, how's that "No one takes tweets seriously" argument coming?  Cause it sure as hell looks like world leaders are taking shit tweeting as honest to god serious messages.


*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10566
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #117 on: January 04, 2017, 08:35:10 PM »
Hey, how's that "No one takes tweets seriously" argument coming? 
Pretty well. Empty words in response to empty words is pretty much precisely the right response. What were you expecting?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5319
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #118 on: January 05, 2017, 06:46:59 AM »
Hey, how's that "No one takes tweets seriously" argument coming? 
Pretty well. Empty words in response to empty words is pretty much precisely the right response. What were you expecting?


Why wouod you say China's official response is just empty words?

Re: Trump
« Reply #119 on: January 05, 2017, 02:22:22 PM »
http://www.newsweek.com/south-korea-appoints-twitter-officer-monitor-donald-trumps-tweets-538748
Looks like at least one country is taking his tweets seriously. 
"His 140-character posts are currented the most effective insight into policies of the incoming administration."