Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Nicky last won the day on December 27 2017

Nicky had the most liked content!


About Nicky

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright

Recent Profile Visitors

14312 profile views
  1. I disagree with your evaluation. In fact, I believe an intelligent person should find my post more informative than everything you've ever posted.
  2. The reason why we don't want to stop gerrymandering and you do is because we're familiar with the methods being proposed to attempt to stop it...and you're not.
  3. Good one. I guess 9/11 wasn't an attack on the US either, since the towers were owned by the NY Port Authority. I don't see why the federal government decided to get involved, they should've just let the owner fight it out with Al Qaeda. Except for all the overwhelming evidence. We have that. But, other than that, nothing.
  4. Dealing with the Hostile Reader

    I've never seen a more inept attempt at ignoring someone in my life.
  5. That's it? A USB stick? Why not say the color too? If you're going to make stuff up, you might as well give it a color. Was it red? I bet it was red. I can tell by the way the file smelled when I opened it. There's no evidence of a USB stick. You can't divine what a file was stored on by looking at it, it's silly talk. There's no need for special expertise to dismantle most of what he's saying. Let's take the way he divined the mythical USB stick, for instance, since you brought it up: " This transfer rate (23 MB/s) is typically seen when copying local data to a fairly slow (USB-2) thumb drive. " That's it. That's the only attempt at backing up the whole USB stick story. You really don't need to be any kind of computer expert to know that an old USB stick is not the only thing you'll see 23 MB/s speed on. Or that most old USB sticks don't even have that speed, there's a huge variance in transfer speeds.
  6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JElnt-C4dI The part that made my day starts at 25:57. Only lasts 15 seconds, and I love how he never even had to think about it. Just a snarky "ehh", and a matter of fact dismissal of the whole basis for altruism. But the whole thing is brilliant, if you like comedy, or you just want to watch two really smart, well educated people, who respect each other, have an hour long conversation.
  7. It's not simple. It's fairly complex. You made it simple by ignoring everything that disproves your simplistic, ignorant theory. Freitas dismantled the whole thing in a sentence. You should read that sentence, instead of going on about "dividing sum of file sizes by time elapsed".
  8. No, what would've helped voters make better decisions was if both parties private mail was released at the same time. Including Trump Jr.'s correspondence with WikiLeaks. (all the stuff described in this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-secret-correspondence-between-donald-trump-jr-and-wikileaks/545738/) Tax records too, while we're on the subject. Then voters would've had the information needed to decide which of the two bad choices is worse: the Hillary camp colluding with each other to handicap Sanders, or the Trump camp, colluding with Wikileaks and Russia, to handicap Clinton. Having the Russian government decide which dirty secrets to release and which not to doesn't help American voters make good decisions. It's an absurd suggestion.
  9. It's telling that you cut off that Nathaniel Freitas quote right before he said the exact opposite: that metadata doesn't exclude the Russians, far from it. From Wikipedia: The Guardian Project founder Nathaniel Freitas independently reviewed Lawrence's article on behalf of The Nation, concluding that while "the work of the Forensicator is detailed and accurate," it did not prove the conclusions VIPS and Lawrence derived from it. Freitas stated that the high throughput suggested by the relevant metadata could have been achieved by a hacker under several different scenarios, including through the use of a remote access trojan, and that the leak hypothesis also requires "the target server ... to be physically on site in the building": "If the files were stored remotely 'in the cloud,' then the same criticism of 'it is not possible to get those speeds' would come into play." In sum: "At this point, given the limited available data, certainty about only a very small number of things can be achieved." So the only guy with credentials and a history of cyber security, in this whole thing, is telling you that your conclusions are wrong. Why are you still going with this? Why would you post an obscure blog even the one professional who bothered to acknowledge it said was wrong?
  10. That's a series of deliberately unintelligible blog posts disguised as technical jargon. There is absolutely no meaning in that blog. I'm a computer programmer, with an interest in cyber security. I'm telling you: none of those sentences mean anything. It's more nonsensical than the "physics" in Loose Change.
  11. So, just to clarify: your position is that the DNC hack never happened? This wikipedia article is about something that never happened https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak ?
  12. Yes, of course. Western countries are democracies. Ordinary citizens decide who runs our governments. We should vote for leaders who recognize basic facts about Vladimir Putin, such as: 1. He is a murderer, behind a series of assassinations and assassination attempts both at home and in countries around the world (including Britain, which shows how brazen he is). 2. He is fueling the Ukrainian civil war. 3. His intelligence services hacked the DNC, and released compromising information to Wikileaks in order to prevent a Clinton victory. This was an unprecedentedly hostile act. While espionage, including hacking, is par for the course between competing world powers, none of them have dumped the information they obtained through espionage onto the web, to influence elections, before. As such, this is a new level of hostility, which warrants an equally hostile response. 4. The DNC hack is part of a media and intelligence campaign aimed at destabilizing western countries. It is Russian propagandists (behind outlets like Russia Today) and intelligence services working together to sow confusion and poison western politics. In other words, we need to elect leaders who recognize Vladimir Putin as the enemy, treat him and his government as such, and retaliate proportionally for every single act of aggression or attempt to interfere. And, of course, we need to speak up about these basic facts, whenever someone is willing to gloss over them and write them off as "the leftist media trying to justify losing the election". Not saying they're not doing that, by the way. But what the leftist media is doing doesn't change what the facts are.
  13. Taxing The Income Taxers

    Politics and government doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's a consequence of the culture of a nation. So, what we need to ask ourselves, what would a culture that produces a capitalist government look like? For instance, with the initiation of force no longer an option, would people (especially the leaders of corporations) feel the need to impose their beliefs on others through economic means? Or would they be more accepting of differing opinions? Would a business owner be more or less likely to employ someone who doesn't believe in what the government is doing, and therefor refuses to fund it? On a more fundamental level, would the employer-employee relationship be regarded more as a contract with a scope limited to a specific kind of cooperation (towards the goal of producing a specific value), than it is today? Or would it be viewed even more as this family like relationship that imposes all sorts of responsibilities on the two sides, beyond just the explicitly stated business transaction?
  14. Difference is, you don't need to build a gulch, to opt out of Venezuela's economic system. You just need to leave the country. Over 2.1 million people left already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_diaspora And, unlike with Mexico and some Central and South American countries (where it's the poor emigrating to the US, seeking menial jobs), this is the upper and middle class, leaving and settling in pretty much every country in the world, outside maybe Africa and some of the bad parts of Asia. That's actually one of the reasons why the crash is happening so quickly, compared to other communist states. These idiots forgot to build a giant wall, guarded by men with guns and attack dogs. So all the productive people just packed their bags and took a plane out of there. P.S. the third stage of the migration is actually whoever is left...lower middle class and the poor, crossing the border into Colombia (some staying, some making their way to the US through smuggling routes).
  15. Just working a job to make money

    Happiness can be a trap. Happy people often assume that the world stands still, and that, as long as they are able to lock themselves into their current circumstances, that guarantees them an entire lifetime of happiness.But, instead, what happens is that they build themselves a happy little cage, and when it turns unhappy (because people change, what makes them happy today won't necessarily make them happy ten or twenty years from now), they're not able to break out of it. It's such a common pattern, with so many people, both professionally and personally...whether it's getting stuck in a job or in a relationship they stopped putting effort into. You can't be content with what you have: you have to keep improving it, and adjusting your goals, or it will sour, because, again: the world doesn't stand still, it's in constant motion. You have to move with it. That's what this attitude will accomplish, for this guy. When you put a cap on your productivity, you put a cap on your entire life. You deprive yourself of the means to shape your life in a way that keeps you happy, as you change over time. You can't live a happy life without ambition. Just because you've achieved something that makes you happy now, doesn't mean you can stop dreaming, and working hard to achieve your new dreams. If you stop trying to progress because you're happy, it's not gonna last.