Slashdot Mirror

Sure. This falls under the category of "If I had made a different point, then your rebuttal would be wrong." Also, look at Moving the Goalposts Fallacy.

Doesn't matter who you appeal to.
It is the first example:
https://www.logicallyfallaciou...

Perhaps you're not familiar with the concept of falsification. You brought up a theoretical argument. I falsified it with a counterexample. Your blinders prevented you form noticing that I opened with "using very simple numbers for the sake of argument"; no deceit was attempted so you don't get to use the adjective "fake" (and please go look up "cherry-picking" while you're at it). Anyhow, back to the concept of falsification: it doesn't matter where my numbers come from; all they do is prove that your theoretical argument is rubbish, and you're pretty much conceding that by rather blatantly moving the goalposts to "repeat the exercise with actual carbon intensity numbers".

BTW, those goalposts are now standing squarely in the territory of economists, and even they are divided over the issue. So, nice try, but I already shot down your argument; now you go "repeat the exercise with actual carbon intensity numbers for the US economy" yourself. And good luck with that; for every study that supports your viewpoint, I'll find one that supports mine.

Rei, all good points, but I think you are playing Chess against an Anon who was eating his own Checkers pieces. . .

My proof of this:
1) He does not think Tesla makes cash from selling cars. Here are the journal entries for my purchase:
Dr: Cash 56K
Cr: Revenue 56K
Dr: COGS 39K (based on this
Cr: Inventory 39K
Hey, look. The Cash account went up by $56K. . . they DO make cash when they sell a car. . .
2) He makes Tesla sound like a college student that partied too hard and is about to get cut off by his parents (perhaps he is projecting?). . . yeah, let's pay no attention to what they actually _used_ the investment funds for. . .
3) He seems to imply that Cash Flow From Financing Activities is some kind of dirty little secret. . . perhaps he is writing from North Korea where they don't have capitalism?
4) He inflicts us with some kind of Self-Righteousness-Fallacy.
5) He thinks that you inject _investors_ and not CASH into companies. . .
6) He thinks that companies need to "show continuous positive cash flow" (I assume he means "cash from from operating activities") . . . so I guess no more capitalism. . . nobody tell Jeff Bezos that his wealth is a complete lie. . .

Never mind, Rei. . . I can see how obliterating posts made by Checkers eating Anons can be fun. . . please carry on. . .

No, because it isn't YOUR principle.

You don't get to disqualify a principle or say that it isn't mine when you cannot even propound your own principle. The rhetorical trap that you're attempting to lay is obvious, all the more so due to the fact that you keep running away from espousing any sort of countervailing principle or proposing any different "regulation" (or even a lack thereof).

you have a legit slippery slope here, chum

There is no such thing as a 'legit' slippery slope. There are only those who fallaciously assert that competing interests cannot be balanced so that a thing inevitably must become purely (and illogically) one thing or its opposite. Pure capitalism or pure communism. Every human being possessing a nuclear weapon or every human being having been defanged, declawed, and deprived of moveable objects. It's bullshit -- and it's the argument that you've been telegraphing since you've demanded that I hand you a "principle."

You have basically no argument. You're saying you want something because you want it. You're not saying why. You're not offering a guiding principle that directs your position. You're not limiting your scope.

I expressly made an argument in the initial post, and I expressly limited my scope. Oddly, you feel free to throw all that away because I will not willingly feed you a singular principle (as if there could be a singular principle) that you may fallaciously shove down your slippery slope as an unproductive tangent to the discussion.

Counter the argument, and counter the "regulation" that was the express product of that argument, or walk away. I need not care either. Bump stock bans aren't going to be reversed because of your fixation upon principle. Magazine limits aren't going to be reversed because of your fixation upon principle. The populace is pissed and D.C. v. Heller set a limit upon scope within which much can be done without fallaciously slipping down your metaphorical slope:

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service -- M-16 rifles and the like -- may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right."

If you want to actually fix your shit so we can have a discussion, cool...

My shit is on point. I can't force you to engage, but I continue to make you look the poorer for refusing to do so. "It just won't matter" is just so much bullshit. Devices that only serve to magnify the damage that one human being can wreak upon others are routinely banned from civilian possession, with the entirely reasonable expectation that such bans reduce the risk of like incidents in the future (where "reduce" != eliminate) and reduce the potential damage rate of other such incidents in the future (where again "reduce" != eliminate).

And so it shall continue to be... whether you like it or not.

Perhaps you like to look up what 'appeal to authority' actually means: https://www.logicallyfallaciou...

For starters: if I recitate from a known authority about a certain subject, then it obviously can't be an appeal to authority.

More explicitley: a MD practicing acupuncture obviously knows more about it than you do. Good luck in refuting this simple statement.

I think that nicely shows that you have no idea what paleontologists do or how they do it.

Fortunately, neither TFA nor this thread are about Paleontology, so that's irrelevant.

Your argument regarding Economists is an "Appeal to Authority" fallacy

Not at all

Yes, it is. You claimed, Economics is a science, because Nobel Prize Committee considers it to be. You offered no other argument — because you appealed to the authority of the committee. It is the classic definition of this particular fallacy.

The climate scientists make predictions routinely and are proven to be accurate

This was your opportunity to cite such predictions. Curiously, you missed it... I wonder, why.

You also have to understand that it takes years for most predictions of climate models to be proven.

Oh, I understand it very well. And I also remember, how, back those years ago, the predictions were of Global Warming and of snow becoming a thing of the past. For example, in 2000 the claim was:

Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is"

Now that we have cold winters with lots of snow, has the good Doctor been renounced by his colleagues and fans — like yourself — for a fool? No, Dr Viner still works for the government...

Has any one of the profession come out to admit, they've been wrong before — and enumerated the steps taken to avoid the same follies in the future? The Climate research spends billions of dollars every year — is it too much to expect some accountability?

Your failure to examine it does not make it less valid.

I examined every bit of evidence you presented in this discussion...

Paleontology could make a statement to the effect of: "We will find a fossil with such and such features".

Your argument regarding Economists is an "Appeal to Authority" fallacy and is being discarded as such. Economists are so notorious for making conflicting — even directly opposite — predictions, one US President has even asked, in exasperation, for a one-handed Economist.

Like that distinguished bunch, Climate Scientists too can explain anything, but are able to predict nothing.

Is that an admission that you were wrong? Or are you just moving the goalposts?

Because Google requiring a cell phone number with a working SMS for an initial set up, which can be changed afterward to TOPT, HOPT, or a recovery email address (all of which Google allowed you to do in 2010 from pretty much any platform by providing the source code, even before the RFC for TOPT was officially out of draft) seems to be a very far cry from what you initially wrote:

Another problem is sites that send SMS for every login attempt even for users who have a TOTP app set up as a second factor.
[...]
Google used to require SMS for 2FA but now appears to allow authentication using an Android device logged into Google Play Services.

In fact, I would argue that Google was a pioneer in providing this kind of convenience with 2FA. And it should be applauded for doing that, and not be put in the same category as Twitter for not even supporting that feature in the first place.

Please feel free to explicitly state the points in my arguments that actually lack evidence, rather than asserting they lack evidence without substantiating the assertion, all that does is make you look ignorant and desperate.

You seem to be struggling, let me help you out with some facts:

Recorded civilization is not older than 6000 years. That assertion is predicated (I suspect) on radiological dating and not actual recorded history. The way that the radiocarbon dating age is determined is based on the "age" of the strata it is found in. The age of the strata is based on the radiological dating (circular logic fallacy) or the "geologic column" which is a totally fictitious construct with no basis in fact or science with 100% imaginary ages.

Attempts to radiocarbon date articles of known age are wildly inaccurate. Radiocarbon dating is also predicated on the levels of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere being constant. It is still changing, indicating that the earth is less than 10,000 years old... Oops. If you want actual facts on radio carbon dating (instead of pull it out of the ass theories and straight up fiction) you can actually learn facts here: http://www.creationstudies.org...

There are no actual histories or societies older than the Jews, who trace their history back to creation about 6000 years ago. The next oldest civilizations (Babylonians, Chinese, etc.) date back only 4000 years give or take a few years.

And no, I did not appeal to ignorance, as you assert, learn your logical fallacies here: https://www.logicallyfallaciou...

I gave you 6000 years of recorded history, millions of eye witnesses, the transient nature of mater and a number of other well documented facts and history that has been accepted as fact for thousands of years.

I will amend my previous statement: I am happy to discuss creation with anyone willing to discuss actual facts and logic reasonably. All you have laid out here are baseless theories and bad science that has been debunked for decades now and then you devolve into personal attacks because apparently anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest and pathetic and a gullible idiot. That must be a fun way to live.

I don't agree with everything this guy says, but he does have a lot of the facts lined up and is worth a watch if you actually care about being right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Right on the number, wrong on the "not all of them recoverable". That number is the "proven reserves" of coal.

I gave the total recoverable number simply to give some perspective on the IPCC prediction of 1000 ppm under their high emission scenario. That prediction requires extrapolating 20th century carbon emission growth until 2100, which is economically utterly implausible, no matter how many additional reserves we discover.

"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future," according to Niels Bohr.

However, they don't label this a prediction, they label this as "here is the high emissions scenario." The question "what happens if current trends continue" seems like a reasonable thing to ask. If I were looking for something to call their prediction, I'd look at the middle of their many scenarios, not the most extreme one.

But, by the way, why should "current trends continue" be "economically utterly implausible"? It's not economically implausible now, why does it suddenly switch to being implausible?

Bottom line, however, is that the comment subject is accurate: "Runaway effect? Nope" is right on the mark. "Slow but real increase in temperature over a time scale of a century" is more like it

No, the bottom line is that people keep misrepresenting IPCC predictions as being "established science", when they are a mix of a core of "basic science", and (I quote you) "feedback loops that are much more complex and less understood",

As you pointed out very clearly in your previous post, the current IPCC best estimate of climate sensitivity, 3 plus or minus 1.5 degrees per doubling, is pretty much identical to the one-dimensional constant-humidity model of Manabe and Wetherald. The only "feedback loop" is the assumption of constant humidity, which I don't think is particularly "complex and less understood."

predictions about poorly understood "effects of government action", and economic forecasts that assume that by 2100 we extract and burn the equivalent of all known fossil fuel reserves.

There needs to be a name for this logical fallacy; it's similar to strawman, but not quite identical. Basically, you took a whole array of different scenarios put forth by IPCC to look at the effect of all sorts of different possible things that could happen, you took the most extreme one, and you say "look at their prediction! It is absurd!". That wasn't their "prediction". That was their analysis "here is the result if this one particular scenario takes place."

On top of that misrepresentation comes even more fear mongering by famous scientists warning of runaway greenhouse effects (examples of which I quoted).

The one famous scientist you quoted was Stephen Hawking. He's not a climate scientist. He has said all sorts of silly things, among them that we should be afraid of aliens, AI, robots and nuclear war. What Stephen Hawking is afraid of is not really terribly relevant to climate science; if you want to know about climate, I'd listen to climate scientists.

The "slow but real increase" that you refer to and that basic physics tells us about is of sufficiently small magnitude not to warrant concern or intervention

That's a judgement call. I don't even disagree. I'm annoyed at people attacking the science beca

The way you can tell CO2 doesn't have the effect on the climate the fear-mongers want you to think it does, is that as CO2 continues to climb climate changes do not track with CO2 increases,

The very first numerical integration of the greenhouse effect incorporating real-world IR aborption and convective/radiative heat transfer, Manabe and Wetherald 1967, predicted a 2.4C temperature rise per doubling. (The same as the current IPCC estimate: "in the range 2 to 4.5 C, with a most likely value of about 3 C.") Since then the CO2 has risen by a factor of 1.25 (from 322 ppm to 404 ppm), and the temperature by 0.98 degrees C. Looking at the correlation, yes the temperature has very well tracked with CO2-- the temperature is actually slightly higher than predicted (applying Arrhenius' logarithmic relationship)-- but well within error bars.

So, basically: you're wrong. Temperature does track CO2 increases.

much less exhibit any kind of runaway effect which is the whole reason you were supposed to fear CO2 to begin with.

Citation needed. What "runaway"?

CO2's effect has been demonstrated conclusively.

Really, in what way? How do you "demonstrate" the whole planet will warm into an unstoppable Venus like unlivable atmosphere? Because that's why we were told to fear CO2.

Strawman.. I suppose somebody, somewhere, some time might have talked about a scenario where Earth warms to Venus temperatures, but I don't know who and I've never heard that argument put forth. Actual scientists talk about: 3 degrees per doubling. How has it been "demonstrated conclusively"? Well, by measurements, for one.

Meanwhile in real life even though CO2 increases exponentially, we see only the same slow warming trend we have been seeing for a while.

Yes: carbon dioxide is increasing and the temperature is warming in the exact amount predicted. Your point is?

Even the IPCC now forecasts MAYBE 2C warming over 100 years.

And, remarkably, the IPCC hasn't changed that prediction at all. The 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report estimated that equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling lay between 1.5 and 4.5 C, with a "best guess in the light of current knowledge" of 2.5 C. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report stated: "Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5 C to 4.5 C (high confidence)".

Your comment subject is "Re:Runaway effect? Nope." That's correct. Nope. It's not happening, because it wasn't predicted in the first place. That's a strawman.

That's a straw man argument.

Yes, if you hunt long enough I suppose you can find idiots who say almost anything. You can find people saying that the Earth is flat, or the rapture is coming next week, or reptilians have replaced the royal family of England with duplicates.

You are refuting straw man arguments.

The OP is making an Appeal to Stupidity. AGW is complicated, and he doesn't understand it, so therefore it can be flippantly dismissed as a non-problem.

Overpopulation has been dismissed in the same manner by human beings before we were even aware of a climate change problem. We seem to prefer doing that.

I don't know what is worse, your comment full of dumb or the fact you got modded up for it.

The OP is making an Appeal to Stupidity. AGW is complicated, and he doesn't understand it, so therefore it can be flippantly dismissed as a non-problem.

The argument is surprisingly effective, and is also impervious to logic, facts, and evidence, since the validity of those has been dismissed a priori. It is especially effective among people that have a vested interest in accepting it.

I'm sorry that Donald Trump's treasonous behavior is so obvious and well known.

[citation needed]
 
  How about this instead?

I created no strawmen

Yes, you did. When you pretended, that the opponents of the UBI claim, beneficiaries of the program will all simply "stop working". Though nobody made such a claim, you pretended somebody did — and attacked it. That was a strawman. By definition.

A) it was 1 study

As opposite to what? Of course, it is a study — do you demand some divine intimation?

B) not all people were shown to reduce their work.

"Most" and "all" are interchangeable synonyms in this context. You know it, I know it, any reasonable reader of this exchange knows it. But the point stands — whether all or simply most individuals will work less, the overall work done by people will be less.

Ahh, but may be some people would work more? Nope, if there was such an effect to report, TFA — hugely sympathetic to the idea of UBI — would've put it into title.

So. The rock-solid evidence for your assertion that 'the non-working poor are easily the laziest people around':
1. There was 1 guy you knew who said he was "too busy" for .. things.
2. Poor neighborhoods are 'full of trash'.

You have opened my eyes, good sir. With that quality of reasoning, you could be president of the USA!

Seriously, though:
@1. Your fallacy is: Hasty generalization
@2. Yes, poorly maintained neighborhoods tend to turn into a mess. Littering is a fairly interesting subject, behaviorally speaking. Things that influence it are whether or not littered trash is already visible, and how high the cost (broadly speaking) is to dispose of the trash properly. Home-ownership contributes in the case of neighborhoods specifically. Stated simply: In poor neighborhoods, nobody has property values to care about, some people don't care enough to dispose of the trash properly and then more people think: "It's already messy, what's my extra bit of trash going to change?"

Note that you assume that 'everyone has endless time' in poor neighborhoods. In your reality, everyone there is unemployed, while the actual reality is that a very significant part of the people living there are working their ass off in some shitty job (or multiple shitty jobs!) trying to make ends meet. I'm not saying it is fine for such people to throw away their trash anywhere, just that it might not be their top priority to keep the neighborhood shiny. In fact, I'll bet that most of them really don't want to invest in the neighborhood, but just want to get the fuck out of there ASAP.

Your sig is wonderful evidence of your batshittyness.

After eight years of being racist, dissent is patriotic once again.

No. That it drives you into impotent rage is a sign, that works as intended... For eight years dissent was racist — it was such a problem, even Obama's fans acknowledged it.

It is now patriotic again — a very welcome development. And to think. we very nearly escaped dissent becoming sexist for eight more years instead...

My signature is short, painfully sarcastic, and to the point. Meanwhile, yours:

Why is there a strong correlation between Trump fans, EM drive believers and people who think SJWs are actually a thing?

is unwieldy, grammatically incorrect, and an example of Complex Question Fallacy. You've picked a wrong fight, kid...

Fallacy of argument by trusting in "authority".

Appeals to authority are not generally a fallacy. Thye are only fallacious if the authority is not an expert on the topic being considered. So, for example, referring to consensus view of practising climate scientists on global warming is not fallacious, but referring to the views of a retired mining middle manager on global warming would be a fallacious appeal to authority.

OMG, appeal to authority is all you can do?

OMG? What, are you twelve?
You might also want read what Appeal to Authority means, since you clearly don't understand how it works...

Scientific American disagrees with you.

OMG, appeal to authority is all you can do? Pathetic... BTW, the article you cited says nothing about the meaning of the word "race" changing. Even if it is a social construct, it must've been that in the 19th century as well — your claims remain wrong either way.

my local media don't care about your local news

The very point is, it is only "local news" here, because it is Black-against-White discrimination. Had it been the other way around, it would've been on the front pages of major newspapers — and foreign media would've reprinted it too.

The 'Free Market' is straight up marketing lie because it is wholly and totally dependent upon nothing in that market ever being Free, everything 'owned' and 'controlled', so that those with the most can control and exploit those with the least. With everything that can be owned being owned, including all of the essentials to life, so that denial of life becomes the tool of exploitation of the not free at all market place of human lives.

Nice equivocation. The term free in "Free Market" means free as in speech, not in beer. You need to understand something before you can properly criticize it. However, you'd be correct if you said we don't have a free market in the United States. A free market wouldn't have corporate welfare, farm subsidies (which are mostly corporate welfare), government bailouts or wage controls and most likely no intellectual property rights.

Your comments, over and over, can be summarize to this: "I don't know fact X, therefore fact X is hard to find out."

You have never actually tried to find out where voting machines are stored. You don't know whether it's hard or not. Saying that the information is hard to get is a logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance."

...

Note that you haven't pointed to any reason to think at all that this information is being kept secret....

And you haven't given any reason to think it's readily available.

So, if you don't know whether the system is secure-- and you repeat several times that you don't know-- is the conclusion "therefore it is secure" justified?

(In any case, the best you can say about your argument that security by obscurity works is that breaking the security might need an inside man.)

Arguing a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his ethnicity is the very definition of racism. The textbook definition mind you of what Racism is.

Correction: He argued a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his parents' nationality. Mexicans are not necessarily Hispanic, just as Americans are not necessarily European, African or Asian.

It was because the judge was of Hispanic ethnicity and still embraced some portion of Mexican culture. Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico, did you hear Trump bring it up once? No? Ok. I hope we can forget about that absurd position and agree that Trump was talking about race and culture, not the nationality of the parents.

Note that Rubio and Cruz probably escaped similar remarks because they've publicly embraced white European culture.

And even *if* he had made a racist statement, that still doesn't mean all of his supporters are racist. That's a hasty generalization.

No one sane claims all of his supporters are racist, just a lot of them.

Oh, and this is a lovely flip of the standard "just because a lot of Trump's supporters are racist doesn't mean he is!"

It just floors me when liberals are for free speech *except* when it's speech they disagree with...

If floors me when some conservatives demonstrate that they have no clue what free speech means.

Arguing a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his ethnicity is the very definition of racism. The textbook definition mind you of what Racism is.

Correction: He argued a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his parents' nationality. Mexicans are not necessarily Hispanic, just as Americans are not necessarily European, African or Asian. And even *if* he had made a racist statement, that still doesn't mean all of his supporters are racist. That's a hasty generalization. It just floors me when liberals are for free speech *except* when it's speech they disagree with...

My evidence is that there is actually, in reality, no demand for large objects in orbit

That my friend is the very definition of begging the question. Your premise assumes the conclusion.

SpaceX is a for profit business. If there were no demand or market for a heavy lift vehicle then why would they bother developing one? That's a huge expense if there is no expected ROI. I'm pretty sure they have a better feel for the market than either of us. Is it possible they are building a figurative bridge to nowhere? Maybe but that would be inconsistent with their prior behavior and economic sanity. Elon Musk has been accused of many things but stupidity has rarely been among them. It is difficult to gauge demand for very large objects in space until you have a realistic means of getting them there. Given that SLS is subject to the whims of congress and that SpaceX hasn't brought their heavy lifter to market yet why would anyone seriously plan a very large satellite today? Simple logic would dictate taking a wait and see approach. Once the lift vehicle is available then and only then should we expect to see very large objects getting designed.

Begging the question is NOT "Brings up the question". It is assuming a question that is not asked and assuming it to be true.

See:
http://www.nizkor.org/features...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.logicallyfallaciou...

Which brings up the question of why /. editors didn't fix that :)

Ehud

I may check every few months

I don't care.

So let me amend my claim

Lame.

Companies don't have "political power"; they can't vote, they can't serve in Congress.

To the contrary, companies have plenty of political power. What we've discovered in the 20th century is that the money to run political campaigns is power.

Companies simply inherit the right to free speech from their owners;

Yes, that's the basis for the Supreme Court "Citizens United" decision. It is on questionable logical grounds however: corporations are not citizens, and while the people composing a corporation have first-amendment rights, it is not at all clear that the corporations themselves do. The belief that an object inherits the properties of the pieces composing it is one of the logical fallacies: this is the fallacy of composition.

(Or see: Logically Fallacious: Fallacy of composition.)

The alternative would be to say that the people themselves have the right to donate to political campaigns, but if they want to do so, they must do so personally, and not from the corporations. This is also perfectly reasonable: corporations are legal entities, not persons, and can be subject to different laws then people.

You think it would be efficient to have dozens of different water systems going to your house?

Dozens? No. Two or three? Yes. Excluded middle much?

Clearly, people whose primary job output is not open-source code do not deserve new jobs.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

https://www.logicallyfallaciou...

Great example of a logical fallacy.

Interesting trivia, but I hope you're not trying to say that's a reason not to ban it.

Nazis used trains, too. Should we ban trains?

I trust him more than [xx]

Your fallacy is false dichotomy. Just because [xx] is a bad or unreliable commentator, doesn't mean that Breitbart is a good or reliable commentator

In fact, Breitbard is not a reliable source.

rather than actually pointing out anything untrue or misleading about what he wrote. If you see something he wrote that is untrue or misleading, spit it out. Otherwise, piss off.

Many people did so. His headline is backwards from the truth. The fans vote was for "no award."

What's the matter little libby boy. Didn't get you latter today at the right time. Or it wasn't the fair trade variety that makes it taste soo good. Fucken lefty dickhead. I guess in your book only black crippled lesbians can write science fiction. Especially if they voted for the Dark Doofus. Anything else is a conspiracy.

I trust him more than [xx]

Your fallacy is false dichotomy. Just because [xx] is a bad or unreliable commentator, doesn't mean that Breitbart is a good or reliable commentator

In fact, Breitbard is not a reliable source.

rather than actually pointing out anything untrue or misleading about what he wrote. If you see something he wrote that is untrue or misleading, spit it out. Otherwise, piss off.

Many people did so. His headline is backwards from the truth. The fans vote was for "no award."

Trying to avoid DWAD:

A application that only sells in the Apple store is very different from a web site that can only be viewed with an iPhone.

In what way, other than that one is wrapped in a UIWebView and one isn't? I'm curious as to your reasoning.

The typical libertarian who wants complete deregulation of *everything*

No, you've described an absolutist Libertarian. This is like saying the typical Socialist wants no privately owned possessions.

Indeed. Appeal to extremes is a logical fallacy. Equating libertarians with anarchists, is as silly as saying that progressives are communists, or conservatives are fascists. If someone is for X, it does not follow that they are for an extreme form of X.

As a Libertarian, I think we should have less regulation than we have now. But I am in favor of regulations that reduce monopolies, and promote competition. I am also in favor of regulations that address market failures. For instance, the "free market" is not going to reduce pollution.

As for this specific "Google Tax", I don't specifically object. If you are going to tax corporate profits, then you should tax them fairly. But stepping back, and looking at the big picture, I also think that taxes on profits are really dumb. You are taxing productivity, investment, and job creation. Far better would be a flat tax on company revenues, higher taxes on dividends, or higher taxes on personal consumption, to encourage reinvestment.

Thank you for demonstrating the Nirvana Fallacy

This is commonly referred to as 'throwing good money after bad.'

This is more tersely called sunk cost fallacy

Pi is easily proven to be valid by observation and measurement. It wasn't invented, it's a description of what people had already observed.

Same with the speed of light in a vacuum.

This number has no physical manifestation - it's an unfalsifiable claim. There is absolutely no evidence, nor any way of testing, this "theory." We could just as well say that the dark matter is all magic pixie dust - magic because it can't be detected even though it has mass (an undetectable mass? can't happen).

Computer learns to pick out salient features to identify images. Then we are shocked that when trained with no supervision the salient features aren’t what we would have chosen.

There is a huge difference: humans pick relevant features guided by a deep understanding of the world, while machine learning, unguided by any understanding, only does so by chance.

Now that we know what computers are picking out as salient features, we can modify the algorithms to add additional constraints on what additional salient features must or must not be in an object identified, such that it would correspond more closely to how humans would classify objects. Baseballs must have curvature for instance not just zig-zag red lines on white.

Hand-coded fixes are not AI - that would be as if we have we had a higher-level intelligent agent in our heads to correct our mistakes (see the homunculus fallacy).

Distinction Without a Difference - The assertion that a position is different from another position based on the language when, in fact, both positions are exactly the same -- at least in practice or practical terms.

To clarify once again. The distinctions drawn are not based on nomenclature. There are specific and important technical differences which have real impact on the discussion.

As I read your post again, I'm sorely tempted to respond in kind. However, I understand that you thought I was assigning ignorance of this particular area of knowledge to you as an insult (although you did do so in your original reply -- note that I simply repeated what you said first), rather than as a simple statement of fact. In your position, I would likely have responded similarly.

My apologies. I mis-stated both what you and I posted. The above paragraph should read:

As I read your post again, I'm sorely tempted to respond in kind. However, I understand that you thought I was assigning ignorance of this particular area of knowledge to you as an insult, rather than as a simple statement of fact. In your position, I would likely have responded similarly.

Distinction Without a Difference - The assertion that a position is different from another position based on the language when, in fact, both positions are exactly the same -- at least in practice or practical terms.

To clarify once again. The distinctions drawn are not based on nomenclature. There are specific and important technical differences which have real impact on the discussion.

As I read your post again, I'm sorely tempted to respond in kind. However, I understand that you thought I was assigning ignorance of this particular area of knowledge to you as an insult (although you did do so in your original reply -- note that I simply repeated what you said first), rather than as a simple statement of fact. In your position, I would likely have responded similarly.

There is no need to be rude or presumptive about my level of education. I shall explain what I meant in more depth to clear up any misunderstandings. OP said: "So if you can spy on the traffic from the user to the tor entry node, and can spy on the traffic leaving the tor exit node at the same time... then you can tell that the traffic you saw going to the entry node is linked to the traffic leaving the exit node" You said: "If you can correlate the server-->exit node flow to a specific entry node-->client flow, you've just identified the client outside of Tor." Distinction Without a Difference - The assertion that a position is different from another position based on the language when, in fact, both positions are exactly the same -- at least in practice or practical terms. Your provided links show that "packet sniffing" and "traffic flow analysis" are not different concepts in practice. The difference is in how the collected data is analyzed or for what purpose. For the purposes of this discussion where analysis of collected packets is for identical purposes, this is also a distinction without a difference. "A packet analyzer...is a computer program or a piece of computer hardware that can intercept and log traffic passing over a digital network or part of a network." "NetFlow is a feature that was introduced on Cisco routers that provides the ability to collect IP network traffic as it enters or exits an interface." If you feel I have misinterpreted your statements, I would appreciate additional feedback.

My points were literal, rather than pejorative. Sniffing packets is gathering the *actual* packets. Netflow collects statistics about packets being transmitted/received. Do you see the difference?

GP stated "Good luck being able to sniff traffic on *both* ends." Firstly, traffic isn't being "sniffed." Secondly, With Netflow, it's not necessary to have packet sniffers on the specific links used in order to gather packet statistics.

What is more, since context is everything, GP was responding to my assessment of the paper (you know, the point of the article) and misunderstood the methodology used by the researchers. I explained.

If I (here and in my original post) have been unable to explain to you both the difference between packet sniffing and Netflow analysis and/or why GP misunderstood the methodology employed by the researchers, I suggest you read the paper yourself.

TL;DR : Packet sniffing != Netflow. Methodologies have impact on results and should be understood.

Should you want to criticize me, my reasoning or my (or at least your interpretation of it) tone for any other reasons? By all means, go right ahead.

There is no need to be rude or presumptive about my level of education. I shall explain what I meant in more depth to clear up any misunderstandings.

OP said: "So if you can spy on the traffic from the user to the tor entry node, and can spy on the traffic leaving the tor exit node at the same time... then you can tell that the traffic you saw going to the entry node is linked to the traffic leaving the exit node"

You said: "If you can correlate the server-->exit node flow to a specific entry node-->client flow, you've just identified the client outside of Tor."

Distinction Without a Difference - The assertion that a position is different from another position based on the language when, in fact, both positions are exactly the same -- at least in practice or practical terms.

Your provided links show that "packet sniffing" and "traffic flow analysis" are not different concepts in practice. The difference is in how the collected data is analyzed or for what purpose. For the purposes of this discussion where analysis of collected packets is for identical purposes, this is also a distinction without a difference. "A packet analyzer...is a computer program or a piece of computer hardware that can intercept and log traffic passing over a digital network or part of a network." "NetFlow is a feature that was introduced on Cisco routers that provides the ability to collect IP network traffic as it enters or exits an interface."

If you feel I have misinterpreted your statements, I would appreciate additional feedback.

In the full quote — in all its different permutations — the given up freedom (liberty) must be essential and the security gained — temporary. With such qualifiers, it becomes a little less obvious, does not it? For example, if the security gained is permanent (as long as device-makers cooperate with authorities), is it worth an essential liberty? Franklin didn't leave any guidance for such case...

I'll take my chance and live life, rather than cower in some hole.

Fortunately, no one — certainly not the FBI — are forcing you into "some hole". Excluded middle much?

That said, I like your spirit, because I too prefer the Individual over Collective...

originally that was the author/inventor, but that ship has long sailed - now it's corporate profits almost exclusively

The "inventor vs. corporation" distinction you are trying to make is without difference . For an inventor to use his invention — whether he himself forms a company to profit from it or sells the invention to an existing company — either way the intellectual property must be controlled by him initially. In this regard nothing has changed since "last century".

We know, what was happening before "intellectual property" was invented — unless they had other sources of income, poets and writers (creators of easily copiable wares) were starving. Inventors, likewise, either went unrewarded for their inventions or were forced to monetize it themselves — and rare is a human, who is both a good inventor and a good businessman. As usual, leftists proclamations are dragging humanity into the past in the guise of "progress"...

artificial scarcity

There is no such thing.

This is the term Marxists use to justify spreading other people's wealth around, that's all. Oh, sure, music and movies can be copied indefinitely and designs and algorithms can be used by anyone once created. But all of those creators need very material things to sustain themselves — and neither food, nor shelter, nor (gasp!) healthcare can be copied via torrent.

Some companies are willing to release software to the wild, others do not. Basing one's employment decisions on that is, indeed quixotic.

You 'win', the thief wins, the cops win, the insurance company wins, and Apple wins.

Might as well break some windows while you're at it.

If you make a distinction, you need to explain the difference. Where does a website end and an application begin? Slashdot and other web boards are essentially web-based workalikes of an NNTP user agent, and that's certainly an application. I had assumed that the line was that one reads a "website" but posts using an "application". If elsewhere, where do you draw the line?