happythomist

But encrypted conversations, by definition, are recorded.

With a warrant, law enforcement is permitted to search a safe containing written records of a conversation; why shouldn't they be allowed to search an encrypted consumer electronic device containing the same?

There's a pretty significant difference between "no HTTPS" and "mandatory decryption for consumer electronic devices with a warrant", even if the latter is still a bad policy.

I thought it was fairly clear "suppress political dissent" was referring to the suppression of peaceful political dissent, and I was responding to that claim.

Actually, the op-ed states:

> Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd. Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants. But the rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence.

Setting aside whether using the Insurrection Act to respond to rioting and looting is an appropriate response, it is quite clear that Tom Cotton is not advocating the use of the the military to "suppress political dissent", which would obviously violate the First Amendment.

We have not been able to simulate any aspect of subjective, conscious experience using a mathematical model, and personally I think we have no good reason to believe we ever will. The qualitative, by definition, cannot be quantified.

> There's a reason many ancient religions forbid loaning money at interest entirely; and it's the same reason we have bankruptcy laws.

The Catholic Church condemns usury as intrinsically evil because, in the words of Aquinas, usury is to "sell what does not exist". [1]

Aquinas observed that some goods are consumed by their very use, such as food or drink. Allowing someone to use such a good is equivalent to transferring the ownership. You cannot "rent" a sandwich or allow someone to "borrow" a bottle of wine, at least not if they intend to eat or drink it. Once the ownership is transferred, you have no basis to charge for its use.

He argued that money was an example of such a good. The only way to use money is to spend it, and it is consumed by that use. Therefore, loaning money at interest is an attempt to "rent" money that you no longer own, which is unjust.

Today, there is much greater access to profitable investment opportunities. It is even possible to obtain a guaranteed rate of return on money through CDs and GICs. It is therefore licit to reflect this in the "price" of money that is lent, but this is not usury. The Church cannot change her definitive teachings of faith and morals; usury has always been and will always be a grave sin. [2]

[1] https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3078.htm

[2] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm

> It was taken for granted by philosophers, that an "infinite regression" is a logical fallacy (e.g., used in a proof by Thomas Aquinas)...

Aquinas specifically objected to the notion of an essentially ordered infinite causal series. He had no objection to an accidentally ordered infinite causal series or other kinds of infinite series.

This distinction is extremely important for the purposes of understanding his proofs of God's existence, and people often unfairly reject his arguments because they conflate the two.

More reading here: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/08/edwards-on-infinite-...

> It's a different strategy. Prime is an investment up front, so it puts people in the mindset of wanting to come up ahead. By buying full Prime, you've essentially prepaid $120 in shipping costs, so you want to take advantage of it and order more than $120 worth in free shipping.

Some retailers do this too, mainly warehouse clubs (e.g. Costco and Sam's Club).

I don't see how obvious discrepancies between the official Wuhan death toll and on-the-ground accounts constitute "wild" derivations.

Moreover, Radio Free Asia is quoting named residents, so this cannot plausibly be described "anonymously sourced US propaganda" or "fake news". [1]

In general, I think one should be skeptical of any statistics produced by a totalitarian dictatorship for Western consumption.

[1] https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/wuhan-deaths-03272020...

There's nothing stopping a malicious actor from acquiring a passcode by force as well.

https://xkcd.com/538/