..and yet - as you're decrying your debater (who, I notice, wrote a fairly lengthy few paragraphs outlining their position, with reference-able information), you cite no sources, offer no evidence, and essentially resort to ad hominem logical fallacies rather than presenting anything credible.

As an outside observer (prior to this post), I think I speak for us all when I say.. you lost, lad. Let it go.

(Also re: ainm dhuit - username does not track, at least in this convo.)

According to some theories, "The Earth" itself never developed free oxygen. O2 was possibly a toxic byproduct from organisms that ingested methane and other gases and excreted oxygen. So by this approach, Mars-originating organisms could still have populated the early Earth.

Also, any organism hearty enough to have survived the journey from Mars to Earth could have done so regardless of the travel time; the organism(s) may have travelled through interplanetary space for thousands of years or hundreds of millions before reaching and populating Earth.

Interestingly, however, some recent research presents the possibility that even the early Earth was oxygen-rich and hospitable to life.

I don't know why we struggle with the concept that life could have originated here, except for the concept that we should not consider ourselves "special" in terms of the universe. But it is equally likely that life has originated uncountable times, making Earth just another one of those places.

Given just what we know about the scale of the universe, the idea that somehow life on Earth is unique in its existence in the entire universe is almost laughable. In all probability, Drake was far too conservative in his calculations.

To be fair, this was indeed very truthfully an "Underground Secure Phone" in every way... except the one way that mattered to the people who wanted it for the purposes for which they wanted it.

I would have loved to get my hands on a few of these for entirely non-criminal purposes.

You had me right up to the last moment there when you - for no reason I can discern - roped M$ into your conclusion.

If you don't think Microsoft collects and monetises your data, you've not been paying attention. Microsoft bought SwiftKey. Why, because they couldn't code their own virtual keyboard? Of course not. They were buying SwiftKey's user base.

Why? What makes a virtual keyboard worth two hundred and fifty MILLION dollars?

It's so Microsoft can know what you type, including things that are private.

Apple are losing their lustre with privacy. But M$ are, have always been, and are increasing their intrusion into your daily life and violating your privacy.

I don't trust Apple, but I don't trust them less than some of the other major players.

But Microsoft deserves as little or less trust than Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc.

Remember that "criminal" is a designation based on a definition... a definition that is entirely under the control of the government.

In the western world, we play the ace as the high card by claiming that some things are "Natural Rights" and are therefore bestowed by "God" or "The Universe" or "Nature", and are or should be out of the reach of the government, which does help curtail some of the worst excesses. But it's not a panacea.

So in some ways, as in this instance, law enforcement cannot be criminals, because their behaviour is sanctioned by the very bodies that define "criminality". The government regularly does things that only "criminals" do (capital punishment is premeditated murder when anyone but the state does it, for instance), but it's not "criminal" behaviour when the state does it, because the state declares that it isn't, which is, at least theoretically, the state's right.

Was this ethical, or moral, or correct? That's an entirely different question. But this did not turn "law enforcement into criminals". They were acting inside the law as it applies to them.

(I'm not judging what they did one way or the other. Only pointing out the fine line of the "criminal" nature of the entire business.)

Personal entropy is actually a powerful and useful tool for authentication.

The problem, as in just about every security tool, is in the implementation.

Choosing a large enough set of potential questions is a challenge. Figuring out questions that solicit answers that are likely to be repeated on a per-byte level is difficult. Choosing knowledge or experiences that are unique and unlikely to come up even intimate conversations, but are still memorable, is fiendish, especially when they should be unique to each authentication channel (site, etc.).

It's very rarely implemented correctly. Sometimes it's worse than not having it at all. (Except that I can generally game even the worst ones to be more secure by not answering the question as presented, which makes my account better protected, if not everyone's...)

I suppose it's better than pretending you have any actual information on the topic you're bloviating about.

Your Truthiness is showing. You might want to have that looked at.

That's nice. Thank you for sharing your experience.

And in true WWE fashion...

PLOT TWIST: The Marines are registered Independents, and hate partisanship! And you are their first victim!

(I couldn't give half a shite about Republicans or Democrats. Both parties are full to the gills with lying, evil politicians. But you are a cunt who wishes violence on others based solely on their political views, and so I wouldn't mind seeing the violence you propose visited on you first and foremost.)

Well sure the biggest and most obvious obstacle as I see it is who gets to define whether something is or is not a "political viewpoint"?

Wearing masks: not a political issue. Yet somehow...

The spherical nature of the Earth: not a political issue. Yet a few people consider it one. So is it?

Vaccines: not a political issue. Yet again...

Having six toes on the left foot: not a political issue. Until it is.

There is no logical or feasible way to define whether something is or isn't a political issue without making it a political issue. Thus everything is suddenly a political issue, and the law applies to the entire universe. This makes the law overly broad, and therefore unconstitutional.

The law is a sacrificial construct/showpiece/McGuffin. It has no purpose other than stirring the passions of the ignorant to try to muster donations and votes. If it survives even the first glance of a challenge in court, I will be massively surprised. I imagine it will die on the vine before the end of the year, which is far longer than its lifetime should have been to begin with.

You are completely correct.

So, in order to have that logic/ruling apply to this case, are you suggesting that "political viewpoints" have the protected class status as race, or that they should have the same status, but do not?

As a business owner, I am not allowed to discriminate against someone based on their race. I am, however, allowed to discriminate against anyone based on their lack of shoes... or masks... or even their political affiliation. None of those are classes protected by the Constitution. (And none of them should be.)

That's GREAT news! I'll be sure to tell my 37-year-old neighbo... ...oh, wait, I can't.

He died.

From COVID.

In other words, you're a fucking idiot spreading lies and getting people killed. I hope you're proud of yourself.

This makes so much sense, thank you.

Wait.. you did intend for this same logic to apply to Proof of Vaccine cards.. right?

Humans < People who purchased (/borrowed) A Brief History of Time < People who read part of the book < People who understood part of the book < People who read all of the book < People who understood all of the book < People who knew more about the subject than the book < Stephen Hawking < God

(Scale is exponential.)

Read it.. all.

Understood.. a bit.

My response to reading TFS was visceral. This is an insidiously simple idea and I think it will be very, very effective. I realised I had unconsciously clamped my mouth shut just reading about it.

I have a difficult enough time with my partner echoing back to me what I've said incorrectly. I can't imagine how much worse it would be if it were faithfully repeated.