Charlie Primero
Member
Are we saying that all digital signatures are compromised?
No. I'm saying that if #QAnon's message was so important, and so easily co-opted and/or subverted by Pretenders, he would employ a digital signature.
Are we saying that all digital signatures are compromised?
Fortunately, the Innerwebz allows free-thinkers to circumvent their war-mongering stranglehold.Most of the media will never mention all these failed predictions
Exactly - this is what upsets me about those who pride themselves on leaning left. Most of them have no clue about what they are really supporting. The alt-right seems far closer to the old Left on issues of war and peace - and what other political issue is more important?If not for the Intenet, hundreds of thousands of American kids would be dying in Syria fighting Russian kids at this very moment.
Well that was a PGP digital signature, but do you mean it wasn't maximum length?No. I'm saying that if #QAnon's message was so important, and so easily co-opted and/or subverted by Pretenders, he would employ a digital signature.
but do you mean it wasn't maximum length?
Sorry - I was referring to the length of the key!No. I haven't looked at GPG in a long time, but I don't think there is a maximum message length.
Sorry - I was referring to the length of the key!
David
Right - now I get it!At the risk of sticking my nose in where it's not wanted and further confusing things, it seems to me that there's some miscommunication happening. David, I think that what Charlie was trying to say in his original post to which you responded is "If this qanon guy had wanted to secure and protect his identity, he would have used a GPG/PGP signature, which looks like this - but he didn't. That was foolish and diminishes his credibility". It seems to me that you have somehow misunderstood Charlie's example of a GPG/PGP signature as an actual signature used by qanon, and thus misunderstood Charlie as saying that there was some sort of problem with the GPG/PGP signature that qanon (as you understood Charlie to be asserting) used. But no, Charlie was only providing an example of what a GPG/PGP signature would have looked like had qanon used one, which qanon didn't, and which Charlie was critiquing him for.
Apologies if my inserting myself into this exchange is unwelcome - I just hope that I might have helped to dispel some apparently ongoing confusion.
It takes about an hour to learn how to digitally sign a block of text in a way that nobody can deny the text is from the author by using the free, open-source program
The “Fake News Awards” announced on the Republican National Committee website and touted by President Trump pose a conundrum: Does it really count if the news organization admits error?
Regular readers of The Fact Checker know that we do not award Pinocchios if a politician admits error. Everyone makes mistakes — and the point is not to play gotcha. News organizations operate in a competitive arena and mistakes are bound to be made. The key test is whether an error is acknowledged and corrected.
President Trump almost never admits error, even as he has made more than 2,000 false or misleading statements.
To sum up, at least seven of the “Fake News” winners resulted in corrections, with two reports prompting suspensions or resignations. One of the winners [was] simply a tweet that [was] quickly corrected and never resulted in a news article. One was an opinion article in which the author later retracted his prediction.
Let’s put it this way: If the president admitted error as frequently, he would earn far fewer Pinocchios.
There’s a temptation to predict immediate economic or foreign-policy collapse; I gave in to that temptation Tuesday night, but quickly realized that I was making the same mistake as the opponents of Brexit (which I got right). So I am retracting that call, right now. It’s at least possible that bigger budget deficits will, if anything, strengthen the economy briefly.
Well this guy is a famous professor of economics at Princeton, would you really expect him to shoot his mouth off like that (which might have actually generated the crash he predicted) , and then for things to have changed so much in 3 days that he could re-analyse the situation and drop his claim!For David: the opinion article to which Glenn refers is Paul Krugman's which you mentioned earlier in the thread. As Glenn points out in his article, Paul retracted his prediction just three days later:
Well this guy is a famous professor of economics at Princeton, would you really expect him to shoot his mouth off like that
for things to have changed so much in 3 days that he could re-analyse the situation and drop his claim!
The problem is, many people only hear the original remark, which is hyped on television, and never even realise it was retracted. I imagine the media bosses are aware of this, which is why they permit such loose reporting to happen.
I have no prior knowledge of Krugman (aside from recognising his name), and have barely looked into the Austrian School of Economics, so I can't comment on any of that. In any case, I think the point that correcting a hasty opinion within three days is pretty reasonable still stands.
True, but Krugman is a slippery fellow with a long history of taking diametrically opposed positions, depending on whether Democrats or Republicans were in power. Those familiar with his hypocritical, self-serving antics consider him as nothing more than a propagandist for the Democratic Party. While I despise many of the Trump administration's policies, and believe we'll all be worse off in the long run because of them, I can't help being delighted at Trump's exposure of Krugman's nonsense.
As it happens, Krugman's wild claim that markets would never recover (because of Trump), and subsequent retraction, was covered in depth in a recent podcast by two very popular Austro-libertarians, Tom Woods and Bob Murphy:
http://contrakrugman.com/ep-120-krugman-tries-to-explain-away-the-2017-economy/