It has a clear purpose the public can get behind, but it will almost certainly be abused for persecuting domestic political rivals, software developers among them.
Here are some entertaining thought exercises:
A cyber 9/11 is linked to Bitcoin. Can Bitcoin developers be sanctioned?
A cyber 9/11 is linked to Tor. Can Tor developers be sanctioned?
You donate to Wikileaks, which is linked to a national security threat. Can you be sanctioned?
Section 1(ii)(B) applies to _any_ individual or entity, domestic or abroad, developing or facilitating development of pentesting or related software employed against vague and faceless "national security interests". But don't you worry, because this is only applicable to the "Chinese" threat which may actually be true for the first couple of years to build political support for the eventual, predictable abuses of power.
How considerate. As if the legal system matters at all to the existence of the NSA. Wikimedia's case notwithstanding, it's abundantly clear the spy agencies can only be peacefully resisted with privacy enhancing technology. It's obvious why they've been degrading public cryptographic standards and pushing for back doors.
The Stasi controlled every aspect of life in East Germany, including the postal service and communications industry. In the US, FOIA documents reveal a history of domestic political spying on civil-rights leaders such as MLK, and on a wide variety of legitimate organizations.
Throughout history, suspicionless surveillance has been carried out by mafioso to oppress and control.
Of your suspicionless surveillance, you assert "this time is different". The assertion fails.
The Nazis could use your arguments word for word on dissenters of the Gestapo.
Barbaric methods of violating private property, kewl?
Thanks Mao, but everything is relative. Maybe what you need is a nice fat doobie. While you're lighting up next to me, know that I as a proud simpleton, find cans of _diesel fuel_ to be "technically impressive". Imagine that?
> Piece by piece, you cease to exist. It takes about half an hour to vanish someone, completely.
I don't really see the appeal, but maybe I don't have the perspective to appreciate the skill that goes into dissolving human bodies properly. I still wouldn't call someone crazy if they did.
You can do worse than pip and virtualenv, yes, but I wouldn't call pip the cream of the crop by any means. NPM is way easier to use for starters, and Go, Rust and Nim go one step beyond NPM by compiling language dependencies down to a single binary file which can be shipped to users. It's very succinctly done.
Python really needs to step up the game to stay ahead of up and coming languages like Nim, which looks like this:
import rdstdin, strutils
let
time24 = readLineFromStdin("Enter a 24-hour time: ").split(':').map(parseInt)
hours24 = time24[0]
minutes24 = time24[1]
flights: array[8, tuple[since: int,
depart: string,
arrive: string]] = [(480, "8:00 a.m.", "10:16 a.m."),
(583, "9:43 a.m.", "11:52 a.m."),
(679, "11:19 a.m.", "1:31 p.m."),
(767, "12:47 p.m.", "3:00 p.m."),
(840, "2:00 p.m.", "4:08 p.m."),
(945, "3:45 p.m.", "5:55 p.m."),
(1140, "7:00 p.m.", "9:20 p.m."),
(1305, "9:45 p.m.", "11:58 p.m.")]
proc minutesSinceMidnight(hours: int = hours24, minutes: int = minutes24): int =
hours * 60 + minutes
proc cmpFlights(m = minutesSinceMidnight()): seq[int] =
result = newSeq[int](flights.len)
for i in 0 .. <flights.len:
result[i] = abs(m - flights[i].since)
proc getClosest(): int =
for k,v in cmpFlights():
if v == cmpFlights().min: return k
echo "Closest departure time is ", flights[getClosest()].depart,
", arriving at ", flights[getClosest()].arrive
And performs like this:
Lang Time [ms] Memory [KB] Compile Time [ms] Compressed Code [B]
Nim 1400 1460 893 486
C++ 1478 2717 774 728
D 1518 2388 1614 669
Rust 1623 2632 6735 934
Java 1874 24428 812 778
OCaml 2384 4496 125 782
Go 3116 1664 596 618
Haskell 3329 5268 3002 1091
LuaJit 3857 2368 - 519
Lisp 8219 15876 1043 1007
Racket 8503 130284 24793 741
> Go, Rust and Nim go one step beyond NPM by compiling language dependencies down to a single binary file
And the person in security hat now says: so how do you deal with library upgrades? If you need to go back to original app developers to provide you with a new version just to update one library, then you've got a problem.
Rust gives you the option to dynamically link, and I expect Nim does as well. As for Go, I believe dynamic linking is somewhere on their roadmap, though I don't know how high of a priority it is.
I see Go and OCaml recommended to people fed up with Python's lack of static typing, and I just cringe. I love experimenting with programming languages, and Go seems to be picking up momentum but unfortunately for both Go and OCaml, they have this ridiculously restrictive syntax to them respectively which it makes it deeply unattractive for prototyping anything.
If you're looking for a statically typed Python that can be grokked in a matter of minutes, and compiles down to a static binary like Go does, and runs as fast as C in benchmarks, you should definitely check out the Nim compiler [1].
Code example:
import rdstdin, strutils
let
time24 = readLineFromStdin("Enter a 24-hour time: ").split(':').map(parseInt)
hours24 = time24[0]
minutes24 = time24[1]
flights: array[8, tuple[since: int,
depart: string,
arrive: string]] = [(480, "8:00 a.m.", "10:16 a.m."),
(583, "9:43 a.m.", "11:52 a.m."),
(679, "11:19 a.m.", "1:31 p.m."),
(767, "12:47 p.m.", "3:00 p.m."),
(840, "2:00 p.m.", "4:08 p.m."),
(945, "3:45 p.m.", "5:55 p.m."),
(1140, "7:00 p.m.", "9:20 p.m."),
(1305, "9:45 p.m.", "11:58 p.m.")]
proc minutesSinceMidnight(hours: int = hours24, minutes: int = minutes24): int =
hours * 60 + minutes
proc cmpFlights(m = minutesSinceMidnight()): seq[int] =
result = newSeq[int](flights.len)
for i in 0 .. <flights.len:
result[i] = abs(m - flights[i].since)
proc getClosest(): int =
for k,v in cmpFlights():
if v == cmpFlights().min: return k
echo "Closest departure time is ", flights[getClosest()].depart,
", arriving at ", flights[getClosest()].arrive
Statistics (on an x86_64 Intel Core2Quad Q9300):
Lang Time [ms] Memory [KB] Compile Time [ms] Compressed Code [B]
Nim 1400 1460 893 486
C++ 1478 2717 774 728
D 1518 2388 1614 669
Rust 1623 2632 6735 934
Java 1874 24428 812 778
OCaml 2384 4496 125 782
Go 3116 1664 596 618
Haskell 3329 5268 3002 1091
LuaJit 3857 2368 - 519
Lisp 8219 15876 1043 1007
Racket 8503 130284 24793 741
Nim is nowhere near the maturity of OCaml, and everything I've seen about it has the whiff of zealotry. I'll wait until I see more nuanced talks about it, and an established ecosystem that doesn't rely on C libraries.
If something is compiled to native code, what's the point of writing a library that's not just a binding? In python it makes sense, because you get the pure-python installation of your app - it doesn't depend on the OS, python versions, etc.
But once you're going to compile your app for a target platform... what's the point of not relying on C libraries?
If your app uses C libraries then it inherits the problems of C: there will almost surely be bugs in the library that mean your app might segfault, or worse, have security problems. Thus e.g. the recent effort to write a full SSL stack in OCaml.
Tor Browser is perfectly suitable for everyday browsing. When's the last time you used it for any significant period of time? It's plenty speedy and very stable.
Please, instead of bemoaning your complete lack of privacy online, do something about it for a change. Download Tor Browser right now.
What kind of a weasel word is "everyday" browsing?
Tor has way more latency. It's been a while since I measured bandwidth, but relatively high bandwidth transfers like videos are everyday browsing nowadays. I, for one, frequently use Youtube playlists as ad-hoc background music, for example.
Because shocking attacks get the public's attention. With all eyes on the TV screen, it's the perfect time to introduce public policy changes that strip people of their rights.
All the better if I can defend my statements by inciting a sense of nationalism or publicly shared responsibility for preventing future heinous crimes.
We are told this is footage of a 7.62mm round fired into a target at point blank range.
With no recoil exhibited by the rifle, no blood present anywhere on the scene, and no violent head or body movement on part of the person "shot" at point blank range, it's very possible that blanks were fired and that this is yet another deep event meant to mislead the public into accepting a hidden agenda.
> Among these purposes is bringing France back into Washington’s orbit. The French president had recently said that the sanctions against Russia should be terminated.
> Hollande was allying himself with French economic interests instead of with Washington’s hegemonic foreign policy.
> Another purpose is to stifle the growing European sympathy for the Palestinians and to realign Europe with Israel.
> Another purpose is to counter the rising opposition in Europe to more Middle Eastern wars. The American neoconservatives have not completed their agenda. Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and Saudi Arabia are still standing.
> And there can be other purposes not apparent to me.
> My recommendation is that you not believe the print and TV media, but think. The failure of Americans to think is why they are 13 years into war and live in a police state.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.
Let's be honest with ourselves - there is not one shred of evidence in there. Yes, for the reasons you state, America could have staged a false flag attack. But that's just a list assembled after the fact to suit the narrative the author has already created.
"And there can be other purposes not apparent to me."
Oh, well, why didn't you say? Wrap this one up as a one and done case, then!
It goes without saying that he is also a 9/11 Truther:
Wait, your saying this is a false flag attack by the US to fool the French government. And the US 'pretend' to kill a French policeman and don't expect the French to ever realise a real policeman never died....all this illusion after gunning down a bunch of journalists.... you need some lessons in logical reasoning.
Nowhere did I state the US did this. Nowhere did I state real people didn't die. I unequivocally stated and continue to insist this police officer did not die since was he wasn't so much as grazed by a single bullet.
Show me _any_ video of a loaded AK-47 being fired, even from a _prone position_, wherein zero recoil is exhibited by the weapon. It is simply not credible to claim AK-47s can be fired with zero recoil. That is a patent impossibility unless blanks are fired. At a minimum, if the muzzle of the weapon doesn't rise, then the energy should be transferred into the shoulder of the shooter. The energy from the gunpowder being ignited has to transfer somewhere, unless there was no gunpowder to begin with. It's even more unbelievable to see a Kalashnikov exhibit no recoil while being fired by a running person _mid-stride_.
Think for yourself. Who benefits most from animosity towards radical Muslims.
"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil."
You don't seem to be a troll based on your profile, so I'm not sure what would cause you to focus on details like the fact that it was a 7.62mm rifle and that you would know what the recoil looks like for various types of rifles.
I'm assuming you got fed this idea somewhere else, and went with it. Either way I'd urge you to really try and re-evaluate from a neutral standpoint and see if it genuinely seems probable.
Allowing your mind to go down this road unchecked seems like a path to Fischer-esque paranoia and self delusion.
Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War. He is a disabled veteran and has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades [1].
> In a video published on Liveleak, a close range “execution style” shows no blast effect or blood, from a weapon capable of devastating effect. (See YouTube demonstration of AK47 effect [2])
> Ballistics experts consulted today describe videos of the French attack as “staged theatrical events.” Other than the suspicious HD video, experts have already noted that, without coming close to “conspiracy theory” dot-connecting, the weapons eject no shell casings, bullets supposedly hit concrete with no effect whatsoever, even from “point blank” range.
> You see, the AK47 round, 7.62×39 is not only very powerful but typically has a steel core for penetrating body armour. When hitting concrete, an AK round throws up large chunks of debris, unseen in this event.
> Preliminary analysis of the audio as well demonstrates a frequency indicating the subsonic report of a blank round. In an “urban canyon,” a supersonic round from an assault rifle creates a noticeable high frequency “crack” with a secondary “report” or echo, generally described as “crack-pop.”
> It has taken only a few hours for press outlets to question perfectly timed HD video from a seemingly fearless bystander who is witnessing actors firing blanks incapable of operating the ejection system of a weapon, imaginary bullets that leave concrete pristine and blood free.
Were you at the scene? Were you there as a witness? Are you a ballistics expert? How much do you know about spatter patterns? Can you tell the exact angle the victim's head was at when he was shot?
Ok, pretend for a moment that you're the terrible neocon type, who would stop at nothing to get France back into Washington's orbit or whatever. Which one of two options would you chose?
1. Pretend that there is some shooting, but don't shoot actual bullets. Make an elaborate show, and be sure not to screw it up - it's all recorded.
2. Pay a couple of disgruntled guys a small stack of cash to go and shoot up a journal office. Actual guys, actual rifles, actual bullets, legit videos.
Seriously. You have to assume those "neocons" are drooling idiots to believe any of this "look at the video!1!!" stuff.
Kalashnikov rifles chambered at 7.62mm exhibit greater than zero recoil under the best of circumstances.
It simply isn't credible to state that a Kalashnikov rifle will not exhibit _any_ recoil.
And to pretend as if a 7.62mm round fired at point blank range into a human target would cause _no_ amount of blood splatter or blowback in the target is highly suspect.
There is no visual of a bullet hitting this police officer and I will not apologize for my statements inciting controversy. Watch the video. In less than a minute you will see I am accurately describing the events as they unfold on video.
Here are some entertaining thought exercises:
A cyber 9/11 is linked to Bitcoin. Can Bitcoin developers be sanctioned?
A cyber 9/11 is linked to Tor. Can Tor developers be sanctioned?
You donate to Wikileaks, which is linked to a national security threat. Can you be sanctioned?
Section 1(ii)(B) applies to _any_ individual or entity, domestic or abroad, developing or facilitating development of pentesting or related software employed against vague and faceless "national security interests". But don't you worry, because this is only applicable to the "Chinese" threat which may actually be true for the first couple of years to build political support for the eventual, predictable abuses of power.