Nice try, but people like you are the reason I feel so superior in the first place. If there weren't a significant number of people with the intellect of a brain dead rhesus monkey and the moral development of a starving weasel, SIIHP, I wouldn't feel the way I do. Yes, I know it's you. You are one of the only people left on this site who still feels necessary to resort to childish insults.
I agree with you 100%. We all need to listen more, and try to understand. It is something I'm trying to work on myself. I'm hindered in this by my intellectual arrogance, something I'm sure other's here have noticed from time to time. Other Americans need not be 'the enemy' just because they have a different point of view.
I think people are scared of the potential for a police state because they don't really understand how anyone could support one or how one actually forms, and they are understandably worried it could happen here. The fact is, a police state requires a military willing to kill their fellow citizens. Our military is made up of volunteers, mostly from lower class backgrounds. They are inculcated with a sense of duty to country, not any specific charismatic leader. You'd have a hard time finding enough true thugs in the military to run a proper police state here.
Nah, you aren't my enemy. I don't like unclear statements that people can interpret any way they like, though. You obviously don't need to clarify, but I am free to point out that your statements are unclear. If you then want to clarify, that is your choice. And based on your clarification, I don't have that much of an issue. It really doesn't matter how easy or hard it is to eavesdrop, as long as there is proper oversight. I don't fully agree with your position on free speech zones, but it is a principled and thoughtful position, so I wouldn't attack it outright. It was your weasel wording I didn't like. And I have a problem with your stated position on weasel wording. You are a bit of a sophist, aren't you? I mean, does it matter what the truth really is, or only what you get people to believe?
Any time you get in an argument with a conservative about some new government surveillance program, ask them how they would feel if President Hillary had that power. For extra effect, try to work the phrase 'President Hillary' into the conversation as many times as possible. Watch in amusement as their blood pressure shoots through the roof and they lose the capacity for rational thought.
As far as any restrictions on political speech? Not that I have seen. Free Speech Zones.
In the US they must have a court order to do it. Warrentless Wiretapping
This network shouldn't be a shock or frankly all that scary as long as they still require a court order to do it. But they don't need a court order, and you know it, yet nowhere do you say that. Why don't you mention that fact? I mean, criminal psychopaths wouldn't be all that scary if they needed a court order to kill you. It sounds like you are trying to write a propaganda piece, carefully worded so that you can claim you weren't really saying what you're actually saying. People will read what you wrote and many of them will come away with a mistaken impression about what they read.
So please, for the sake of clarity, what are you saying? You want easy wiretapping, but with a court order? You want to do away with the PATRIOT act? (which, I note, you aren't that fond of... a little fond, perhaps?) What are you saying? In plain, easily interpreted, non propaganda language, please.
Here's a clue for you: no one cares what you say. No one here respects you at all. I'm only responding because it amuses me to keep yanking your chain. I bet you'll feel compelled to respond to this post, too. I can make you do things. Froth at the mouth. Good boy! Post an angry response to this. There you go, who's a good boy? Here's your treat: another human being is paying attention to you. Doesn't that make you feel all warm and tingly? After all, bad attention is better than none, right?
At this point it's not even about wining the argument, everyone knows I won several posts ago. It's about getting you to humiliate yourself in front of everyone. Here's the hilarious part: even knowing that, you will be unable to keep from responding to this post and humiliating yourself further. You can try to justify it all you like, but those justifications only work in your own head, the rest of us are just laughing our asses off.
When I said 'that was what was meant,' I meant that the posters to whom you were replying were using the word forensics in the proper, computer security related context. You presume too much in assuming you know what others meant. Crow your triumphant pedantry to the world, it won't change the fact that we are all laughing at your utter lack of knowledge.
The funny thing is, even the definition you tried to apply does not fit. The term 'forensics', when used in the context of 'an argumentative exercise' means public speaking. Perhaps you've heard of the forensics club at your high school? Thats what 'forensics' means in that context. Looking up words you don't know in a dictionary and misapplying them does not make you seem wise.
In computer security, 'forensics' has a well established meaning. Any computer security class will teach proper forensic procedures that preserve the trail of evidence for use in a court of law. As this is an article about computer security, I and the other posters naturally assumed the word was used in that context. This analysis is not proper forensics, and the evidence gathered would likely be inadmissible in court.
That was what was meant. You can argue semantics and definitions all you like, but anyone with even a few course credits in computer security will be unimpressed by your presumption and general lack of security related knowledge. Hell, even someone who merely spent a few days boning up for one of the security related certs will be amused.
Serotonin, the cause of all the drug's most desirable effects, only regenerates so fast. Unless one takes 5-HTP, the direct precursor of seratonin, available as an over the counter health supplement.
at the time, I was denser than water. As everyone knows, the important thing is not whether you sink or float, it's whether you weigh the same as a duck.
Let's dissect this piece of illogic.
U.S. dollars only have value because they can be spent on U.S. goods. So, they can't be spent on other country's goods? No, because:
When the U.S. has a 'trade deficit', it means that those foreign countries are sitting on those dollars we send them Okay, so our dollars can be spent on other country's goods, too.
Eventually, they will spend those dollars on U.S. goods, as that is the only thing they are good for Wait, what? Now we can't buy foreign goods with our dollars? But didn't you just say we are sending them our dollars? Maybe you mean only we can buy goods with our dollars, but other countries who have our dollars have to use them to buy our goods and no one else's. Huh?
I don't think you have any idea how international trade actually works.
It might sound nice to say 'buy american' but if we really did that, and boycott foreign stuff, you'd drive the price on american shit up so much there would be no way in hell anyone but americans would buy american, You were the one not paying attention in economics class. If the price on American goods goes up, more American companies will enter the market to create those goods, bringing the price back down.
People wreck their own lives, and sometimes drugs are involved. If people were educated as to the dangers, most will make rational choices. The idea that everyone who uses drugs or alcohol invariably spirals out of control is a myth. Most people never move beyond the casual use phase, and even people who move on to daily use rarely let it get out of control. And finally, most people who get into a destructive use pattern get themselves out of it. The people who spiral all the way down would have found some other way to do it even without the drugs.
That being said, there are some drugs that are more dangerous than others, and if you do them, you should watch yourself for signs things are getting out of hand. Opiates and speed are the worst in that regard. Cocaine and crack are only a little better. Hippies and ravers take note: ecstasy is just another amphetamine, it's almost as dangerous as speed. Alcohol is pretty bad, maybe one notch down from coke. Pot is just going to make it easier to goof off and waste time, that's about all it's ever going to do to you. If you control your mindset and the setting you do them in, hallucinogens are harmless for most people. But if you have a weak and troubled mind, better stay away.
That's fucking ridiculous. Why not just steal the money? Crack is not so addictive that anyone using it once, at fucking GUNPOINT, is ever going to use it again. Did YOU get hooked? Even if it were, how is getting someone hooked on something you have no monopoly on going to help? Is anyone really going to be going back to the guy that held a gun to their head to buy crack? Did YOU go back to the same guy?
No, because you are making the whole thing up for some incomprehensible reason. What really gets me is that you think anyone is going to believe that cock and bull story.
On the flip side, defamation laws can be used by schoolyard bullies to make someone's life hell and possibly bankrupt them, if the bully has more money. Here in the US, they are fairly well balanced to keep this from happening but I hear it's much easier to rake someone over the coals in the UK.
I certainly don't think you're an idiot for stating your opinion on the matter. And anytime you say something controversial here, your in danger of some kind of downmod. But I'm not sure I follow your Scientology analogy. Don't they mostly sue for copyright infringement?
In my more cynical moments, I think legal systems the world over and throughout history have been primarily about limiting access to justice to those with money and power. But hey, that's fair, right? Rich and powerful people are more important than you or I, obviously, or they wouldn't have money and power. So why should they have to play by the same rules, I mean, that's just placing artificial limits on the most productive members of society.
As I said, and the other post beside this says, read the review. If you don't have the time, try a Ctrl+F "crackpot" and you will see the term crackpot is never used in the review. The review author makes only factual statements about the book. He is in no danger at all from this crackpot, but now I may be;-)
Thankfully, he has to prove that this review is knowingly false, written with intent to harm, and actually caused harm to prove libel. It will never happen. I read the review and NOWHERE does PZ Myers make ANY malicious claims about the author of Lifecode. He writes factual statements about the book only. He never called the author a crackpot. Even if he had, crackpot has an accepted definition that actually applies to this author.
He is, in fact, a crackpot. Saying so is not false. From wikipedia:
Pejoratively, the term Crackpot is used against a person, subjectively also called a crank, who writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about a particular subject, often in science or mathematics, but is alleged to have false or even ludicrous beliefs If it can be shown that his beliefs are false, which is completely trivial to do, then the label of 'crackpot' applies and is not libel.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice try, but people like you are the reason I feel so superior in the first place. If there weren't a significant number of people with the intellect of a brain dead rhesus monkey and the moral development of a starving weasel, SIIHP, I wouldn't feel the way I do. Yes, I know it's you. You are one of the only people left on this site who still feels necessary to resort to childish insults.
I agree with you 100%. We all need to listen more, and try to understand. It is something I'm trying to work on myself. I'm hindered in this by my intellectual arrogance, something I'm sure other's here have noticed from time to time. Other Americans need not be 'the enemy' just because they have a different point of view.
I think people are scared of the potential for a police state because they don't really understand how anyone could support one or how one actually forms, and they are understandably worried it could happen here. The fact is, a police state requires a military willing to kill their fellow citizens. Our military is made up of volunteers, mostly from lower class backgrounds. They are inculcated with a sense of duty to country, not any specific charismatic leader. You'd have a hard time finding enough true thugs in the military to run a proper police state here.
Nah, you aren't my enemy. I don't like unclear statements that people can interpret any way they like, though. You obviously don't need to clarify, but I am free to point out that your statements are unclear. If you then want to clarify, that is your choice. And based on your clarification, I don't have that much of an issue. It really doesn't matter how easy or hard it is to eavesdrop, as long as there is proper oversight. I don't fully agree with your position on free speech zones, but it is a principled and thoughtful position, so I wouldn't attack it outright. It was your weasel wording I didn't like. And I have a problem with your stated position on weasel wording. You are a bit of a sophist, aren't you? I mean, does it matter what the truth really is, or only what you get people to believe?
Any time you get in an argument with a conservative about some new government surveillance program, ask them how they would feel if President Hillary had that power. For extra effect, try to work the phrase 'President Hillary' into the conversation as many times as possible. Watch in amusement as their blood pressure shoots through the roof and they lose the capacity for rational thought.
So please, for the sake of clarity, what are you saying? You want easy wiretapping, but with a court order? You want to do away with the PATRIOT act? (which, I note, you aren't that fond of... a little fond, perhaps?) What are you saying? In plain, easily interpreted, non propaganda language, please.
Here's a clue for you: no one cares what you say. No one here respects you at all. I'm only responding because it amuses me to keep yanking your chain. I bet you'll feel compelled to respond to this post, too. I can make you do things. Froth at the mouth. Good boy! Post an angry response to this. There you go, who's a good boy? Here's your treat: another human being is paying attention to you. Doesn't that make you feel all warm and tingly? After all, bad attention is better than none, right?
At this point it's not even about wining the argument, everyone knows I won several posts ago. It's about getting you to humiliate yourself in front of everyone. Here's the hilarious part: even knowing that, you will be unable to keep from responding to this post and humiliating yourself further. You can try to justify it all you like, but those justifications only work in your own head, the rest of us are just laughing our asses off.
You lose.
When I said 'that was what was meant,' I meant that the posters to whom you were replying were using the word forensics in the proper, computer security related context. You presume too much in assuming you know what others meant. Crow your triumphant pedantry to the world, it won't change the fact that we are all laughing at your utter lack of knowledge.
The funny thing is, even the definition you tried to apply does not fit. The term 'forensics', when used in the context of 'an argumentative exercise' means public speaking. Perhaps you've heard of the forensics club at your high school? Thats what 'forensics' means in that context. Looking up words you don't know in a dictionary and misapplying them does not make you seem wise.
In computer security, 'forensics' has a well established meaning. Any computer security class will teach proper forensic procedures that preserve the trail of evidence for use in a court of law. As this is an article about computer security, I and the other posters naturally assumed the word was used in that context. This analysis is not proper forensics, and the evidence gathered would likely be inadmissible in court.
That was what was meant. You can argue semantics and definitions all you like, but anyone with even a few course credits in computer security will be unimpressed by your presumption and general lack of security related knowledge. Hell, even someone who merely spent a few days boning up for one of the security related certs will be amused.
I don't think you have any idea how international trade actually works.
I'm lucky I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that...
People wreck their own lives, and sometimes drugs are involved. If people were educated as to the dangers, most will make rational choices. The idea that everyone who uses drugs or alcohol invariably spirals out of control is a myth. Most people never move beyond the casual use phase, and even people who move on to daily use rarely let it get out of control. And finally, most people who get into a destructive use pattern get themselves out of it. The people who spiral all the way down would have found some other way to do it even without the drugs.
That being said, there are some drugs that are more dangerous than others, and if you do them, you should watch yourself for signs things are getting out of hand. Opiates and speed are the worst in that regard. Cocaine and crack are only a little better. Hippies and ravers take note: ecstasy is just another amphetamine, it's almost as dangerous as speed. Alcohol is pretty bad, maybe one notch down from coke. Pot is just going to make it easier to goof off and waste time, that's about all it's ever going to do to you.
If you control your mindset and the setting you do them in, hallucinogens are harmless for most people. But if you have a weak and troubled mind, better stay away.
That's fucking ridiculous. Why not just steal the money? Crack is not so addictive that anyone using it once, at fucking GUNPOINT, is ever going to use it again. Did YOU get hooked? Even if it were, how is getting someone hooked on something you have no monopoly on going to help? Is anyone really going to be going back to the guy that held a gun to their head to buy crack? Did YOU go back to the same guy?
No, because you are making the whole thing up for some incomprehensible reason. What really gets me is that you think anyone is going to believe that cock and bull story.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, man. Everyone knows that.
These are 15 ounce books, the missing ounce goes towards prevention.
What's this then? People called nullspace they go the house?
On the flip side, defamation laws can be used by schoolyard bullies to make someone's life hell and possibly bankrupt them, if the bully has more money. Here in the US, they are fairly well balanced to keep this from happening but I hear it's much easier to rake someone over the coals in the UK.
I certainly don't think you're an idiot for stating your opinion on the matter. And anytime you say something controversial here, your in danger of some kind of downmod. But I'm not sure I follow your Scientology analogy. Don't they mostly sue for copyright infringement?
In my more cynical moments, I think legal systems the world over and throughout history have been primarily about limiting access to justice to those with money and power. But hey, that's fair, right? Rich and powerful people are more important than you or I, obviously, or they wouldn't have money and power. So why should they have to play by the same rules, I mean, that's just placing artificial limits on the most productive members of society.
They actually think that way, you know.
Really? Can you point to a current wiki page having false or even ludicrous information regarding math or science?
Also, it should be noted that saying the writing is crackpottery is different than saying the author is a crockpot.
As I said, and the other post beside this says, read the review. If you don't have the time, try a Ctrl+F "crackpot" and you will see the term crackpot is never used in the review. The review author makes only factual statements about the book. He is in no danger at all from this crackpot, but now I may be ;-)
He is, in fact, a crackpot. Saying so is not false. From wikipedia: Pejoratively, the term Crackpot is used against a person, subjectively also called a crank, who writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about a particular subject, often in science or mathematics, but is alleged to have false or even ludicrous beliefs If it can be shown that his beliefs are false, which is completely trivial to do, then the label of 'crackpot' applies and is not libel.