So why are we stopping little old ladies and inspecting their bags?
So what about a little old lady who has the wrong colour skin - where does she fit into your model?
Profiling is easy to support, all the while you're not the one being profiled.
Of course I have no idea about anything about you, as you post anonymously. But consider, I'm from the UK. Supposing the US noted that several previous attempts have been made by people who previously spent time in the UK, and therefore decided to give all UK citizens extra profiling. It doesn't matter how much I and little old ladies protested, and if we'd previously supported the notion of profiling, we'd have no right to complain.
Why is profiling so wrong when we did not choose this enemy and cannot help that they all have so much in common that makes them so identifiable?
Well the one thing they all have in common is that they're all human. Therefore, by your own logic, we should be searching everyone. You wouldn't want to risk it, would you?
Or you might as well save money, get a PC from any retailer you like (Apple are just one - Macs are just Apple PCs these days after all, especially if you're not even running OS X), and run Linux.
That's the thing though - I like a browser that just works out of the box. It's one thing to download Firefox, but if I then have to spend ages working out which add-ons I have to find and install to replicate basic functionality, that's a pain.
Yes, this is why everyone here loves Linux and hates OS X.
Oh wait.
I don't understand why this fanaticism exists - sure, I love open source, but it's clearly not all that matters. With any other kind of software, people accept commercial alternatives, and anyone insisting that only open source is worth considering would be written off as a RMS clone. For some reason, when it comes to bashing Opera, the rules are different.
Anyhow, when Opera was around, Firefox didn't exist. The choice was Opera or IE. Neither were free - you're saying you preferred IE?
The only real difference is the graphics tech has changed a lot since then, the core game is fundamentally the same.
Yes, but that "real difference" also makes the difference between a game being easy to write (today, a Doom or Quake style game could be made much easier due to hardware acceleration and freely available 3D engines, neither of which existed for ID), and a game being hard to write.
Since MW2 has vastly improved graphics, I don't think you can suggest it was not hard to write. I once had fun playing space invaders, but no one's going to make money today with a space invaders game.
Okay, well, when you stop believing that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees
I don't believe that. In the 19th Century, mathematicians constructed non-Euclidean geometries, and those work out just fine.
I only believe that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees given those certain initial axioms of Euclidean geometry. But nowhere do I believe those axioms are true. In terms of mathematics, there is no need for us to believe any one set of axioms to be true. In terms of the physical universe, in fact we may well live in a Universe where the angles of a triangle don't add up to 180 degrees - the way to determine this is through observation and evidence.
I'm still curious what you meant by "fairy tales like zombie cats in boxes"?
Interesting, isn't it, how close those two definitions are to each other.
By "close", you mean different. Axioms are chosen because they have useful properties in forming a set of mathematics that we are interested in.
No one is required to believe an axiom to be true - in fact, this is clearly not the case, as we can take different axioms, and build different mathematical systems from them. It's no more a "belief" than me choosing what colour t-shirt I'm going to wear today.
Science does, in fact, depend on believing things that can't be proved.
No, I'm referring to the whole of mathematics, one of the cornerstones of science.
Maths isn't science, but even so, it still doesn't require beliefs. And whilst we're at it, science and maths aren't people - they don't and can't have beliefs.
So come on, what are these "fairy tales like zombie cats in boxes" you allege are asserted by maths or science, or whatever it is you are saying?
Science also has a few tenets of faith, like occam's razor.
That's not a requirement of science, nor a belief - it's a principle that makes science either (by making models not more complex than they need be).
You can run from these basic truths all you want, but when you boil it all down, science is based on a finite number of beliefs, from which every conclusion it can make is derived from.
Conclusions are made from observation and evidence.
It is a method of inquiry, it has certain things that are beyond question (axiomic), and it seeks to answer fundamental questions about the universe.
So not at all like religion, which doesn't inquire, and doesnt answer those questions.
It also believes in fairy tales like zombie cats in boxes, as a way of conveying values and knowledge of the world.
There is no belief. Presumably you're referring to the thought experiment in quantum mechanics which is just that, a thought experiement. No one claims this cat in a box exists. And the claims about what might happen in that experiment are supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence.
I can understand "It doesn't really matter if an apple hit him on the head or not, so let's stop trying to decide if it really happened".
But I'm not so sure about "It doesn't really matter if an apple hit him on the head or not, so let's claim it to be true". The argument about stories sounds worryingly close to the "They're just stories, honest" arguments made when religious people make claims about things being true, when we have no evidence for them.
Specifically, the hope that if they are smart and study hard, they can achieve great things. Today's sociological research rejects the contention that intelligence has any real bearing on success -- success is a combination of factors, of which intelligence can sometimes help a person.
So surely this is an example of where the truth does matter, and where it may be an issue for people to believe that "if they are smart and study hard, they can achieve great things" when actually that isn't true?
The thing that annoys me about the apple story is that it creates the impression that it's ideas that are important - it wasn't the insight, intellect and hard work in developing calculus and formulating a theory of gravity that mattered, rather that it all came in an instant with a single idea. It's this thought process that leads people to thinking that any idea they have is important - as opposed to what you do with it. It also leads to claims that ideas should be protected, for example, through copyright or patent law.
So unless you're a teacher, or those laws are so stupid that you can't depict someone of legal age in an artificial image, you're a little inaccurate.
Check. The law on images does indeed criminalise acts that would be entirely legal to do in reality - whether they're actual images, or obviously fake unrealistic drawings.
So he's entirely accurate on this matter.
In fact the drawings law goes further - it explicitly includes images of adults, where there are some predominant features of someone who is 17.
Apparently there is an exception to the violent porn law that you're clearly thinking of to allow being in the film as a defence. You do have to be clearly visible and recognisable however.
But note only if it's something you're "allowed" to consent to in the first place - which restricts it too.
And yes indeed - it doesn't even include the photographer!
Of course, that probably isn't a defence if you give/sell it to your mates, or for them.
Or your other partner:)
It's also a little more targeted than just "kinky", no-one's going to be dragged through court because of a little whipped cream. I deplore this particular law as much as anyone, but overstating its reach like this doesn't help anyone.
It's true that not all "kinky" stuff is illegal, but nonetheless, the illegal stuff includes material that is reasonably described by that word. I don't think it matters what exactly is covered - in some ways, a law that covers less kinds is worse, as it's targetting more of a minority (usually if someone said "It's okay, this law only affects some people", we wouldn't consider that as acceptable, if anything we'd view it as worse).
The problem is that there isn't a word to describe it exactly, because it's just an ill-defined made up category. The Government's own terms of "violent" or "extreme" are also inaccurate, not to mention emotive and biased.
We won't have any clue on what it might cover until cases come to court - one such case will be in March, IIRC.
I remember there was a recent case involving a joke image, which was found not guilty - but still enough to get the poor guy arrested.
Given the tabloids are either in favour of or actively campaigned for most of the things you talk about
Although not this law, surprisingly. Even the Daily Mail published a criticism of it!
Well, he was arrested so they've got his DNA. He's been suspended from work despite not being found guilty of a crime. No doubt they'll be scanning his phone and computers they took for any such images, even though no harm was caused by the images. And even though we now know it was a joke, he's still guilty of a crime and may be charged.
Case closed.
Ah, trial by Slashdot comment. That sort of attitude is exactly the problem.
It took them months to do anything, and even now they're "debating" it. And the result is that some trivial change will be made (they'll still keep them, but for years, rather than life).
In the meantime, people arrested are still having their details kept - the track record for getting them removed is low.
Yeah, I think "don't care" is accurate.
Imagine if a police officer told you had done something that wasn't legal, and you said "Okay, I'll have a think about it and decide what to do", whilst continuing to do what he told you not to. Then a few months or years later, you made some trivial change to what he did. Would that be okay?
Liberal Democrats: Actually think we should have more socialism, and the canonical example of politicians thinking that "fair" just means "screwing people who probably aren't going to vote for us anyway".
The Lib Dems are not socalist. And you say it as if the UK is in any way socialist, which is nonsense. They might be more left wing than the other parties, but that's not saying very much given how they've both moved to the right, and the Lib Dems are left wing in areas that seem reasonable (e.g., money for higher education rather than tuition fees - and not that private companies in general should be under Government control).
But they are the ones strongest on civil liberties - they're the party to vote for if you want less of nonsense like in this story. They're also the party to support if you want more evidence based policies regarding things like drugs, as you mention.
Not that I think they're perfect, but I'm not sure I would describe them as "extreme".
UKIP: Some of their policies sound quite respectable
I see it as in the sense that even a broken clock is right twice a day... I get the impression that they care about things like freedom, when it affects the white middle class Christian male (hence they oppose ID cards, for example, all the while everyone will have to have one). But otherwise, they mean things like freedom for men to tell women what they're allowed to wear (as in the recent claim that the Burka should be banned).
Maybe someone does need to found a moderate, relatively central party
Whilst extremes can be bad, moderation isn't necessarily always good either (see fallacy of argument to moderation). What would be better is if we had a better voting system than FPTP, such as STV, Approval or Condorcet. That way people can vote for a range of parties they agree with, without needing a single party that magically they agree with on everything.
No one has any problem with the police investigating it.
The problem is when the "investigation" results in totally messing over his life, even when it's now clear it was just a joke, and that he may still be charged for the privilege of it all.
* He's on bail. * He may be charged with "conspiring to create a bomb hoax". * He's been suspended from work - apparently we're guilty until proven innocent now. * They've confiscated "his iPhone, laptop and home computer".
Yep, you left a few things out of your "simply".
Not to mention that these days in the UK, an arrest means your DNA and fingerprints are kept on file, even if you're found innocent or never charged.
I don't see the humor in saying [snip] That's the equivalent of saying [snip]
I didn't quite catch that, could you repeat it please? Something about you making a threat?
Indeed - I'm not too concerned over the arrest because it can be hard telling real threats from jokes when something is said in public.
But what concerns me far more is that, even though it's clear it's a joke now, he still faces problems:
* He's on bail. * He may be charged with "conspiring to create a bomb hoax". * He's been suspended from work - apparently we're guilty until proven innocent now. * They've confiscated "his iPhone, laptop and home computer".
That last one is a particular concern - whilst totally unnecessary, it now seems standard for people to lose access to items which are fast becoming essential items in today's society, for communication and in some cases their livelihoods. Sometimes they're taken for searches, but there's apparently such a backlog that you can kiss goodbye to your equipment for many months.
No doubt they'll be scanning the hard disk to find if there's any other random "crime" that they can get him on too.
More generally, there's also the problem of blurring the lines between statements intended for friends, but that can be read by anyone.
Consider, if someone made the same joke in a pub, even though that's a public place, would it make sense for the person to go through that ordeal, because a random member of the public heard them and phoned the police? (Although I guess at least you could deny ever having said it in that instance...)
Slashdot Mirror
So why are we stopping little old ladies and inspecting their bags?
So what about a little old lady who has the wrong colour skin - where does she fit into your model?
Profiling is easy to support, all the while you're not the one being profiled.
Of course I have no idea about anything about you, as you post anonymously. But consider, I'm from the UK. Supposing the US noted that several previous attempts have been made by people who previously spent time in the UK, and therefore decided to give all UK citizens extra profiling. It doesn't matter how much I and little old ladies protested, and if we'd previously supported the notion of profiling, we'd have no right to complain.
Why is profiling so wrong when we did not choose this enemy and cannot help that they all have so much in common that makes them so identifiable?
Well the one thing they all have in common is that they're all human. Therefore, by your own logic, we should be searching everyone. You wouldn't want to risk it, would you?
Or you might as well save money, get a PC from any retailer you like (Apple are just one - Macs are just Apple PCs these days after all, especially if you're not even running OS X), and run Linux.
If I passed a law that said copyrights now last 10^100 years
But then you might get sued by Google! (It's not just copyright law that's gone messed up.)
That's the thing though - I like a browser that just works out of the box. It's one thing to download Firefox, but if I then have to spend ages working out which add-ons I have to find and install to replicate basic functionality, that's a pain.
Yes, this is why everyone here loves Linux and hates OS X.
Oh wait.
I don't understand why this fanaticism exists - sure, I love open source, but it's clearly not all that matters. With any other kind of software, people accept commercial alternatives, and anyone insisting that only open source is worth considering would be written off as a RMS clone. For some reason, when it comes to bashing Opera, the rules are different.
Anyhow, when Opera was around, Firefox didn't exist. The choice was Opera or IE. Neither were free - you're saying you preferred IE?
The histories of some religions are full of inquiry -- Thomas Aquinas in Catholicism comes to mind. And most religions answer fundamental questions.
Well indeed they inquire, but do they give us the answer, is more what I mean. (By answer, I mean the correct one, not made up ones.)
But these games today do cost a lot of money to write in the first place, too, even before you include the marketing.
The only real difference is the graphics tech has changed a lot since then, the core game is fundamentally the same.
Yes, but that "real difference" also makes the difference between a game being easy to write (today, a Doom or Quake style game could be made much easier due to hardware acceleration and freely available 3D engines, neither of which existed for ID), and a game being hard to write.
Since MW2 has vastly improved graphics, I don't think you can suggest it was not hard to write. I once had fun playing space invaders, but no one's going to make money today with a space invaders game.
That's not a requirement of science, nor a belief - it's a principle that makes science either
Gah, I meant "it's a principle that makes science easier".
Okay, well, when you stop believing that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees
I don't believe that. In the 19th Century, mathematicians constructed non-Euclidean geometries, and those work out just fine.
I only believe that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees given those certain initial axioms of Euclidean geometry. But nowhere do I believe those axioms are true. In terms of mathematics, there is no need for us to believe any one set of axioms to be true. In terms of the physical universe, in fact we may well live in a Universe where the angles of a triangle don't add up to 180 degrees - the way to determine this is through observation and evidence.
I'm still curious what you meant by "fairy tales like zombie cats in boxes"?
and at traffic lights you can just cycle straight past the queuing traffic.
Ah, so you're one of the Cambridge cyclists who goes through red lights and tries to run me down as I'm crossing the road ;)
Admittedly I'm not sure what the rule is regarding cyclists and traffic lights, but I presumed that they should still give way to pedestrians?
Axioms are part of maths, not science.
Interesting, isn't it, how close those two definitions are to each other.
By "close", you mean different. Axioms are chosen because they have useful properties in forming a set of mathematics that we are interested in.
No one is required to believe an axiom to be true - in fact, this is clearly not the case, as we can take different axioms, and build different mathematical systems from them. It's no more a "belief" than me choosing what colour t-shirt I'm going to wear today.
Science does, in fact, depend on believing things that can't be proved.
Such as?
No, I'm referring to the whole of mathematics, one of the cornerstones of science.
Maths isn't science, but even so, it still doesn't require beliefs. And whilst we're at it, science and maths aren't people - they don't and can't have beliefs.
So come on, what are these "fairy tales like zombie cats in boxes" you allege are asserted by maths or science, or whatever it is you are saying?
Science also has a few tenets of faith, like occam's razor.
That's not a requirement of science, nor a belief - it's a principle that makes science either (by making models not more complex than they need be).
You can run from these basic truths all you want, but when you boil it all down, science is based on a finite number of beliefs, from which every conclusion it can make is derived from.
Conclusions are made from observation and evidence.
They invented calculus, dont you know.
Well actually they were beaten to it by some German company a few hundred years earlier. But Apple's version "works better", it just does, honest!
It is a method of inquiry, it has certain things that are beyond question (axiomic), and it seeks to answer fundamental questions about the universe.
So not at all like religion, which doesn't inquire, and doesnt answer those questions.
It also believes in fairy tales like zombie cats in boxes, as a way of conveying values and knowledge of the world.
There is no belief. Presumably you're referring to the thought experiment in quantum mechanics which is just that, a thought experiement. No one claims this cat in a box exists. And the claims about what might happen in that experiment are supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence.
I can understand "It doesn't really matter if an apple hit him on the head or not, so let's stop trying to decide if it really happened".
But I'm not so sure about "It doesn't really matter if an apple hit him on the head or not, so let's claim it to be true". The argument about stories sounds worryingly close to the "They're just stories, honest" arguments made when religious people make claims about things being true, when we have no evidence for them.
Specifically, the hope that if they are smart and study hard, they can achieve great things. Today's sociological research rejects the contention that intelligence has any real bearing on success -- success is a combination of factors, of which intelligence can sometimes help a person.
So surely this is an example of where the truth does matter, and where it may be an issue for people to believe that "if they are smart and study hard, they can achieve great things" when actually that isn't true?
The thing that annoys me about the apple story is that it creates the impression that it's ideas that are important - it wasn't the insight, intellect and hard work in developing calculus and formulating a theory of gravity that mattered, rather that it all came in an instant with a single idea. It's this thought process that leads people to thinking that any idea they have is important - as opposed to what you do with it. It also leads to claims that ideas should be protected, for example, through copyright or patent law.
So unless you're a teacher, or those laws are so stupid that you can't depict someone of legal age in an artificial image, you're a little inaccurate.
Check. The law on images does indeed criminalise acts that would be entirely legal to do in reality - whether they're actual images, or obviously fake unrealistic drawings.
So he's entirely accurate on this matter.
In fact the drawings law goes further - it explicitly includes images of adults, where there are some predominant features of someone who is 17.
Apparently there is an exception to the violent porn law that you're clearly thinking of to allow being in the film as a defence. You do have to be clearly visible and recognisable however.
But note only if it's something you're "allowed" to consent to in the first place - which restricts it too.
And yes indeed - it doesn't even include the photographer!
Of course, that probably isn't a defence if you give/sell it to your mates, or for them.
Or your other partner :)
It's also a little more targeted than just "kinky", no-one's going to be dragged through court because of a little whipped cream. I deplore this particular law as much as anyone, but overstating its reach like this doesn't help anyone.
It's true that not all "kinky" stuff is illegal, but nonetheless, the illegal stuff includes material that is reasonably described by that word. I don't think it matters what exactly is covered - in some ways, a law that covers less kinds is worse, as it's targetting more of a minority (usually if someone said "It's okay, this law only affects some people", we wouldn't consider that as acceptable, if anything we'd view it as worse).
The problem is that there isn't a word to describe it exactly, because it's just an ill-defined made up category. The Government's own terms of "violent" or "extreme" are also inaccurate, not to mention emotive and biased.
We won't have any clue on what it might cover until cases come to court - one such case will be in March, IIRC.
I remember there was a recent case involving a joke image, which was found not guilty - but still enough to get the poor guy arrested.
Given the tabloids are either in favour of or actively campaigned for most of the things you talk about
Although not this law, surprisingly. Even the Daily Mail published a criticism of it!
Well, he was arrested so they've got his DNA. He's been suspended from work despite not being found guilty of a crime. No doubt they'll be scanning his phone and computers they took for any such images, even though no harm was caused by the images. And even though we now know it was a joke, he's still guilty of a crime and may be charged.
Case closed.
Ah, trial by Slashdot comment. That sort of attitude is exactly the problem.
It took them months to do anything, and even now they're "debating" it. And the result is that some trivial change will be made (they'll still keep them, but for years, rather than life).
In the meantime, people arrested are still having their details kept - the track record for getting them removed is low.
Yeah, I think "don't care" is accurate.
Imagine if a police officer told you had done something that wasn't legal, and you said "Okay, I'll have a think about it and decide what to do", whilst continuing to do what he told you not to. Then a few months or years later, you made some trivial change to what he did. Would that be okay?
Liberal Democrats: Actually think we should have more socialism, and the canonical example of politicians thinking that "fair" just means "screwing people who probably aren't going to vote for us anyway".
The Lib Dems are not socalist. And you say it as if the UK is in any way socialist, which is nonsense. They might be more left wing than the other parties, but that's not saying very much given how they've both moved to the right, and the Lib Dems are left wing in areas that seem reasonable (e.g., money for higher education rather than tuition fees - and not that private companies in general should be under Government control).
But they are the ones strongest on civil liberties - they're the party to vote for if you want less of nonsense like in this story. They're also the party to support if you want more evidence based policies regarding things like drugs, as you mention.
Not that I think they're perfect, but I'm not sure I would describe them as "extreme".
UKIP: Some of their policies sound quite respectable
I see it as in the sense that even a broken clock is right twice a day ... I get the impression that they care about things like freedom, when it affects the white middle class Christian male (hence they oppose ID cards, for example, all the while everyone will have to have one). But otherwise, they mean things like freedom for men to tell women what they're allowed to wear (as in the recent claim that the Burka should be banned).
Maybe someone does need to found a moderate, relatively central party
Whilst extremes can be bad, moderation isn't necessarily always good either (see fallacy of argument to moderation). What would be better is if we had a better voting system than FPTP, such as STV, Approval or Condorcet. That way people can vote for a range of parties they agree with, without needing a single party that magically they agree with on everything.
is normal for police to investigate, I really don't blame them there. They quickly saw there was nothing to it.
Not true - he's on bail, and may yet be charged. They've also stolen, sorry, confiscated his mobile phone, home computer and laptop.
No one has any problem with the police investigating it.
The problem is when the "investigation" results in totally messing over his life, even when it's now clear it was just a joke, and that he may still be charged for the privilege of it all.
RTFA - unfortunately the Slashdot link contains few details, you have to read The Independent story that it was taken from, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/twitter-joke-led-to-terror-act-arrest-and-airport-life-ban-1870913.html .
This guy was simply arrested, questioned, and released.
From the original article http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/twitter-joke-led-to-terror-act-arrest-and-airport-life-ban-1870913.html :
* He's on bail.
* He may be charged with "conspiring to create a bomb hoax".
* He's been suspended from work - apparently we're guilty until proven innocent now.
* They've confiscated "his iPhone, laptop and home computer".
Yep, you left a few things out of your "simply".
Not to mention that these days in the UK, an arrest means your DNA and fingerprints are kept on file, even if you're found innocent or never charged.
I don't see the humor in saying [snip] That's the equivalent of saying [snip]
I didn't quite catch that, could you repeat it please? Something about you making a threat?
They couldn't risk not arresting the guy.
Indeed - I'm not too concerned over the arrest because it can be hard telling real threats from jokes when something is said in public.
But what concerns me far more is that, even though it's clear it's a joke now, he still faces problems:
* He's on bail.
* He may be charged with "conspiring to create a bomb hoax".
* He's been suspended from work - apparently we're guilty until proven innocent now.
* They've confiscated "his iPhone, laptop and home computer".
That last one is a particular concern - whilst totally unnecessary, it now seems standard for people to lose access to items which are fast becoming essential items in today's society, for communication and in some cases their livelihoods. Sometimes they're taken for searches, but there's apparently such a backlog that you can kiss goodbye to your equipment for many months.
No doubt they'll be scanning the hard disk to find if there's any other random "crime" that they can get him on too.
More generally, there's also the problem of blurring the lines between statements intended for friends, but that can be read by anyone.
Consider, if someone made the same joke in a pub, even though that's a public place, would it make sense for the person to go through that ordeal, because a random member of the public heard them and phoned the police? (Although I guess at least you could deny ever having said it in that instance...)