|
|
there is no way for the English language to be specific enough that a 1 page document can provide an exact to every political problem.
True, but perhaps the English language could be specific enough provide a to every sentence.
-
>>>and promoted relentlessly by Fox News
Yeah but I also saw it "promoted" on MSNBC and CNN. I think you are confusing COVERAGE of a huge mass of people.
Did you even look at the link? It's a screenshot of Fox News' own headline stating "FNC TAX DAY TEA PARTIES", and if you check the dates you'll see that they began promoting their "Fox News Channel Tax Day Tea Parties" a week or more in advance.
Coverage is when you report on an what other other people are doing over there.
When you run media campaign in an effort to get people to show up at your own event in the future, that's called promoting.
MSNBC, CNN, and every other legitimate News Agency provided coverage of the Tea Party events.
These 3 channels also "promoted" Occupy when people first started massing for the protests.
If you have a screen shot of a CNN headline advertizing a "CNN Occupy Events", especially if they start advertizing it a week in advance, then that would be promoting. All the legitimate news agencies, and part-time-news-agency FOX, provided coverage of Occupy. Fox took a break from their occasional news coverage to provide advance promotion for their own Tea Party Events.
Fox thought it would be a swell scheme to undermine the current administration.
-
Epic Fail.
You goofed.
The only "Epic Fail" is that you never bothered to check the link.
This is a perfect illustration of how partisans on both sides can lose touch with reality. People have a bad habit of picking teams, and then mental shortcuts can fall into place short-circuiting reasoned consideration and logic. Mental filters can drop into place that block information from entering the brain at all, without even permitting any rational consideration of whether the information is true or valuable.
You saw MediaMatters on the link, and you instantly applied shortcircuit logic to deem whatever was there automatically biased and false. A mental filter dropped into place that kept whatever was there from making it into your brain, filtering it out without permitting any consideration of what it was and whether it was true information.
You went on an immediate rant against MediaMatters, and you goofed. It wouldn't matter even if everything in your rant were 100% true, because he wasn't citing Mediamatters. He was citing Fox News. And you would have known that if you bothered checking the link for 3 seconds. He was citing Fox News in a TV screen capture. The image is merely hosted on a MediaMatters webserver. The information in the image, the information he was citing, was 100% from Fox News, straight out of Fox News' mouth, straight out of Fox News' own headline.
No... it was COVERED by Fox news
False. Fox News did not "cover" the Tea Parties, Fox News created and promoted the events week or more in advance. And if you bothered to check the link you'd have seen Fox New's own headline stating that these were Fox News Channel Events.
Quoting Fox News' own headline: "FNC TAX DAY TEA PARTIES".
Fox News Channel Tax Day Tea Parties.
That's what Fox called them, while PROMOTING them. While promoting them a week in advance.
Fox News Channel Tax Day Tea Parties.
Amusingly, it's actually grown some legitimate roots since and has proved more difficult to control than the establishment would like.
Wrong again. The GOP establishment detests the TEA party and is terrified by it.
His statement was completely correct. Fox News is a partisan political activism organization, and they figured it would be a swell idea to undermine the current administration by orchestrating these "FNC TAX DAY TEA PARTIES". And as he said, it's actually grown some legitimate roots since and has proved more difficult to control than the establishment would like. It's turned into a bit of a Frankenstein monster, largely wrecking damage on the GOP. Yes, as you said the GOP has become rather afraid of the Tea Party.
A small number of Tea Party radicals have gotten elected, and their inability to function as legislators has disrupted the Republican Caucus from the inside, while a similar number of Tea Party radicals have won Republican primaries and in the general election handed those seats to the Democrats. The net effect on Democratic side is roughly zero, while the net effect for the Republicans is decidedly negative.
The "FNC TAX DAY TEA PARTIES" have largely backfired.
-
Products that explode when left in the sun
That would be an awesome brand of Popcorn!
Pardon me while I go file a Solar Popcorn patent.
-
This technique yields the interesting result that you want to apply an optimal compression algorithm to your files before encrypting them. That way you are encrypting effectively random data, so that an attacker cannot use this sort of method to identify a successful decryption.
Except applying the corresponding decompression after decryption, of course.
You don't have the decryption yet. You need an algorithm to obtain a potential decryption. If P=NP then you can use an algorithm to (relatively quickly) find and give you the most compressible decryption. And the most compressible decryption is almost certainly the correct decryption. If the message is already compressed then you need some other way for an algorithm to pick out what potential decryption to give to you. For example if you know a specific name probably appears in the true text then you could try using an algorithm that returns decompressed potential decryptions that contain a specific name. You need to know or guess something about the text in order to write an algorithm which returns the correct decryption.
Still doesn't help at all to tell if the message was "Attack tomorrow 10:00" or "We should surrender!", which are both meaningful sentences.
If the message length is so short that it is comparable in length to the key, then yeah, you'd get a huge number of "meaningful sentence" possible decryptions with no way to pick the right one. However for any message significantly longer than the key, the probability of rapidly approaches zero that there would exist more than one meaningful proper-English decryption.
Look: generating all possible outputs from a one-time pad encrypted message
I obviously was not talking about one-time pads. The comments I was responding to were not about one time pads.
-
No, need füdz, hoomanz is made of bad füdz.
What kind of "cat scholar" are you? What cat ever uses an ümlaüt? No cat I've ever seen.
Not even German cats. And I've spoken with plenty of German cats.
-
trying to learn from the town idiot is just trying to be another town idiot
<zen>
A fool learns nothing, even from the wisest of men.
A wise man learns much, even from the greatest of fools.
</zen>
-
It's possible to be an open-minded atheist, you know; a talking, burning bush might change my mind, at least in principle.
I too consider myself an open minded atheist, and changing my mind about God would likely be the *second* thought to pop into my head.
The first thought would be, of course, which of my idiot friends might think it funny to dose my soda with LSD.
-
Hail Ada, full of grace.
Our Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy mind,
software.
Holy Ada, Mother of God,
pray for us programmers,
now and at the hour of our compile.
Make.
-
Funny thing is, not once in the gospels does Jesus claim that he is the Lord (i.e. God). He only ever refers to himself as Son of God
Too bad we don't have first-hand writings from him, rather than extremely unreliable hear-say compiled decades after his death.
I suspect the "Son of God" thing is an out-of-context or distorted version of what was probably a "We are all children of god" message.
-
A sinking ship gathers no moss. -- Donald Kaul