Snowden is either a total self-deluded idiot or a self-deluded victim of blackmail....he could've **leaked these anonymously** through many channels.
The US actually has really well defined journalistic protections for **journalists** who keep their sources anonymous.But Glenn Greenwald didn't do that.
Serious question: what do you think about his lack of communication and public presence? he has only made very tightly controlled appearances...
And let's just remember to compare his treatment with others like Assange in Russia. Assange leaked info during the Bush administration and was on TV in Russia.
I know you can always just say "Snowden was afraid of getting sent to a black site" to any question but I'm hoping to hear more than that. I really want to know what you think.
is it the article from **2006** that says "NSA has massive database of American's phone calls" & makes public much of what Snowden released (minus the operational details like the name 'Prism')
I posed questions...are you saying those questions are half-truths somehow?
I think YOUR comment is the fucking 'Gish Gallop'...all you did was link to some wiki...you didn't **engage with the topic** and point out why...because you can't, because you're 'Gish Galloping' this topic
China fucked up human procreation...their *whole population* is now 60-40 male thanks to their ridiculous culture...I think they can manage to fuck up the moon somehow given enough tie...
And yes...Billions...the Chinese have spent Billions on this mission of destruction...are you saying a moon mission can be done for LESS than a billion dollars?
NASA spends 1 Billion dollars on janitorial staff for crying out loud.
Ok look, I'm with you on the fact that Snowden didn't release any new info, at best it confirmed and gave operational details to stuff that was known publicly since 2006...
Snowden isn't a free man. Whoever has been pulling his strings has got him on a tight leash.
Why doesn't he have a blog? Why haven't we seen or heard of him around town in Russia? Why is he always wearing the same light grey shirt?
He's in trouble...he got himself in it, either by doing something to get blackmailed (downloading kiddie pr0n from a scammer) or deluded himself into thinking he was some kind of 'Deep Throat' figure.
the point is it's PR not space exploration...and if I'm wrong and it IS space exploration, it is for the purpose of mining and screwing up just like the Chinese ruined the environment in their country.
compare Luna to whatever double planet you want that's not the point, the point is we already did that whole thing
China is wasting untold Billions of dollars doing this crap for nothing. All gains could have been gotten other ways for much cheaper.
it's their money, they can spend it how they want, but let's discuss it on the merits not on the propaganda
tl;dr = your (and Dawkins) notions of the science and 'god' are base opinions carrying the relevance of your opinion on, say, the best Pizza Toppings
You interpreted Dawkin's comments thusly:
"Supernatural" means "magical". He doesn't believe in magic and he thinks its childish for others to believe in magic. He defends that position fairly.
so that means anyone who believes in anything 'supernatural' is childish
by definition...it's a blanket statement that covers **anyone** who doesn't believe in hard atheism
you defend and support this statement...and in doing so make a logical error that undercuts your whole premise (and Dawkins as well)
**that's what we're talking about**
you are trying to Red Herring this discussion by doing definition gymnastics but the *core* is that you and Dawkins think that anyone who isn't a hard atheist is "childish"
its condescending bullshit...
there are all kinds of New Age concepts of a 'universal consciousness' that try to be based in science...several leading scientists have written about these topics informally, including Robert Oppenheimer & others who worked at the Eselen Institute in California.
you and Dawkins claim people are "childish" based on **your opinion** of the best way to answer questions beyond scientific inquiry
ITS YOUR OPINION...that's all it is...it's notion you can prove or ever hold a person accountable to in any way...
it has the level of relevance as you opinion as to the best Pizza Toppings
I wonder about internal security first and foremost on this stuff.
Who in the **Indiana State Police** is monitoring the usage of this data? Some IT dude? State Police are especially 'bro' types b/c they have an inferiority complex.
What's keeping them from just parking outside a popular youth area on a Friday night and lurk when things are slow down at the precinct?
I"m saying, I question whether the people who approved this system even **know** what it is capable of and how the cops out in the field are using it on a daily basis.
We already know the NSA used their system to check in on former lovers and other such tawdry stuff..
"hard landing" and "soft landing" is one way to think of it...
a better way might be "controlled landing"...but even that could be nitpicked
the difference is the level of control
think of it as the difference between a plane landing vs an object dropping by parachute
the implication is that if you're just doing it as a Cold War publicity stunt, you can get away with just flinging shit up there willy-nilly, whereas if you are actually trying to explore you use the landing sequence as an opportunity to iteratively improve mission capabilities for further exploration.
It still boggles my mind how they were able to achieve that without
It was a radio transmitter packed into a cannon ball, just like Sputnik...not exactly 'space age' and certainly not requiring a modern computing device
Techies today have kind of fetishized the command line, but there are other ways to program a machine.
You can hurl a wad of electronics at a world and send pictures back or you can **EXPLORE**
It's not a ruse, but that doesn't mean those numbers aren't being misused anyhow.
You're right to be skeptical. Numbers about internet traffic are often misused in stories planted by PR to promote a political policy agenda.
Bots are a huge ammount of internet traffic...internet traffic we were *told* was so congested by lolcats, pron, & netflix that we were going to have to abandon Net Neutrality.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Your definition is bullshit, because your argument is bullshit, based on a false dichotomy. Arthur C. Clark would disagree with your concept of magic, that you can't credibly deny.
Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of an 'god' and any logic that claims to have a better way to decide the question is just an opinion.
Arthur C. Clark would disagree with your concept of magic, that you can't credibly deny.
I tend to assume that any model which says our universe is a simulation (or whatever) is just gibberish and cute math tricks
yes. this is absolutely correct and I think this every time I read anything about the 'holographic' universe
however, TFA, once you get past the headlines, doesn't really explain much beyond quoting the researchers on the work's *implications* on string theory and quantum mechanics in general
so, it really isn't that informative
what they're really saying is that the universe is ***made of light***....or say 'electro-magnetic radiation' instead of light b/c its more than visible light obv.
think of the edge of the universe as the edge of a black hole event horizon...in this case, a true 'black body'...at the event horizon, the last thing we can know about the matter/energy at all is the last "light" (aka electro magnetic radiation of all bands) before the very waves of light meet the infinite chaos that is the black hole event horizon. The moment it crosses it is instantaneously obliterated/absorbed by the nothingness/black hole
to put this into context, one branch of a part of high energy physics was founded on a distinction between some old ruling observation/theorem and then the Cosmic Microwave Background came along and flipped everything on its head...the universe is accelerating when it should be decelerating...that new energy pushing the acceleration is 'dark energy'
but, according to this research, we can still have a universe that is essentially made of electro-magnetic radiation...vibrating through the *medium* of the 1-dimensional "strings"...but that's another topic
I don't want to argue with you over what Dawkins said or didn't say...
His book is called "The God Delusion"...you can say "I am not insulting X" while you are *in fact* insulting X, just because you say you aren't doesn't mean that you aren't...
But I have made that point twice, and I think you get it...
Where do we go from here? Do we disagree or have we hammered it out?
why, he's just saying they're deluuusional and full of poppycock!
calling someone "delusional" is insulting
also, adding a layer of abstraction..."he's not insulting all believers, just any believer that claims to be sane and not delusional" is bullshit....everyone sees throught it
either/or....stop equivicating and at least own what you believe
i guess this whole fucking conversation is over then!
c'mon man...you just threw more abstractions into the mix which makes for more possible vertices of misunderstanding in the giant graph that is this conversation...
ok...it is your opinion that 'supernatural' means 'magical' in this context...if you asked people who are believers, many might say 'supernatural' means something that is wholly bigger than in the 'meta' sense of all nature...or they might say something that inherently defines the laws of physics continuiously...
I just wanted you to know that you haven't proven shit, or contributed one thing to this conversation with your point about "magic"
unsupportable hypothesis, such as the existence of God.
the existence of god, to people who believe, is not a "hypothesis" that they are testing and have some statistical margin for error
the whole point of the concept of 'faith' is that you make a 'leap of faith'....
people who believe say they believe something unprovable via hypothesis b/c of personal experience and faith
i just proved you wrong...so what...your 'logic' is just your opinion of what would be the most 'logical' approach
all I have really proven is that you cannot PROVE or DISPROVE the existence of a supernatural god, buddah, Xenu or whatever with logic or scientific inquiry
thanks for chiming in w/ an explanation of the teapot thing...I still think its a complete waste of time to consider but thnx just the same
"teapot" is in the eye of the beholder...
what i mean is, "a teapot orbiting the earth" is pure poppycock (said with English accent and foppish hair)
the analogy is that believing in some 'god' is just as patently ludicrous (more English fopping) as believing in a teapot or whatever
it's just like the Flying Spagetti Monster analogy
It's all just opinion too...it's your **opinion** that the proper analogy to believing in 'god' is [insert something ludicrous and nonsensical]
take **any belief system** hell even theistic Satanism...they all will tell you that their belief is logical or 'makes sense' given some precepts or inherent 'truths'
analogies don't prove anything...they are **opinions** of correlation meant to make a falsifiable point & aid understanding
Hey seriously that was a nice read. Thanks for commenting.
I take solace in the fact that Dawkins' notions are in fact not representative of the scientific community.
In my graduate program, I knew a few 'outspoken' atheists who loved to talk Dawkins stuff and we never, not once, got into any unsavory business when having philosophical discussions. They were cool as long as they saw I was cool. Very respectful if obstinate.
It is precisely because there are so many well thought out notions that don't fit into spirituality OR Dawkins' dogma that I compared him to Rush Limbaugh in the first place. He should know better.
*posts link to philosopher's wind-bag attempt to logically "prove" god cant exist via teapot anaology*
BAM!
*wins/.*
Look, you didn't just PWN me by pasting a link and claiming victory without any context, discussion of my points, or any discussion.
That link goes to the wikipedia article on Russell's Teapot, which is some analogy that also involves some notion that b/c god is outside of science then those claiming god exists have the burden of proof.
1st. linking to an analogy that attempts to prove god doesn't exist doesn't prove or disprove my point that science/logic *cannot* prove or disprove it either way. You have to actually engage the topic and show why this teapot analogy is absolutely 100% perfectly proving that science is capable and indeed has proven all gods of all notions all over the world have not and will not ever exist
2nd I AGREE that if I was trying to convince you that Flying Spagetti Monster existed, then YES **I WOULD HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF**
But not every person who thinks a supernatural being exists is even religious or is trying to convince you to agree with them.
No one really gives a shit what *you personally* think in this case.
This is about boundaries, limits and **claims that have been made**
Dawkins made some very outlandish claims that have made him rich and famous...they do not withstand scrutiny and make us all worse off and dumber for having heard them.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh c'mon...you're still buying into the *false narrative* of Snowden
Chelsea Manning was duped by Adrain Lamo in a chat session....Lamo is a 'hacker' who snitches for the feds.
Manning was snitched on by a 2-bit hacker, because of things Manning herself said in chat...**it was her own fault**
This is common knowledge, see the chat logs for yourself: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/
Snowden is either a total self-deluded idiot or a self-deluded victim of blackmail....he could've **leaked these anonymously** through many channels.
The US actually has really well defined journalistic protections for **journalists** who keep their sources anonymous.But Glenn Greenwald didn't do that.
Well thanks for engaging my question.
I agree those are all possibilities.
Serious question: what do you think about his lack of communication and public presence? he has only made very tightly controlled appearances...
And let's just remember to compare his treatment with others like Assange in Russia. Assange leaked info during the Bush administration and was on TV in Russia.
I know you can always just say "Snowden was afraid of getting sent to a black site" to any question but I'm hoping to hear more than that. I really want to know what you think.
for the record, Julian Assange was able to have **his own television show** in Russia
Snowden can't even change his fucking shirt...
what part of my comment is a half-truth?
is it the article from **2006** that says "NSA has massive database of American's phone calls" & makes public much of what Snowden released (minus the operational details like the name 'Prism')
I posed questions...are you saying those questions are half-truths somehow?
I think YOUR comment is the fucking 'Gish Gallop'...all you did was link to some wiki...you didn't **engage with the topic** and point out why...because you can't, because you're 'Gish Galloping' this topic
China fucked up human procreation...their *whole population* is now 60-40 male thanks to their ridiculous culture...I think they can manage to fuck up the moon somehow given enough tie...
And yes...Billions...the Chinese have spent Billions on this mission of destruction...are you saying a moon mission can be done for LESS than a billion dollars?
NASA spends 1 Billion dollars on janitorial staff for crying out loud.
Stop commenting on this thread you're an idiot
When the US wants something done we just do it...that's how it's always been...for good or ill that's just our style
that's it...that's all...
thing is, Snowden is just a dupe...he's being manipulated and the US intel services know this
and we wouldn't ask Putin's permission either
Ok look, I'm with you on the fact that Snowden didn't release any new info, at best it confirmed and gave operational details to stuff that was known publicly since 2006...
Snowden isn't a free man. Whoever has been pulling his strings has got him on a tight leash.
Why doesn't he have a blog? Why haven't we seen or heard of him around town in Russia? Why is he always wearing the same light grey shirt?
He's in trouble...he got himself in it, either by doing something to get blackmailed (downloading kiddie pr0n from a scammer) or deluded himself into thinking he was some kind of 'Deep Throat' figure.
Other questions:
Why didn't Snowden use Wikileaks?
Why didn't Glenn Greenwald release Snowden's name?
the point is it's PR not space exploration...and if I'm wrong and it IS space exploration, it is for the purpose of mining and screwing up just like the Chinese ruined the environment in their country.
compare Luna to whatever double planet you want that's not the point, the point is we already did that whole thing
China is wasting untold Billions of dollars doing this crap for nothing. All gains could have been gotten other ways for much cheaper.
it's their money, they can spend it how they want, but let's discuss it on the merits not on the propaganda
tl;dr = your (and Dawkins) notions of the science and 'god' are base opinions carrying the relevance of your opinion on, say, the best Pizza Toppings
You interpreted Dawkin's comments thusly:
so that means anyone who believes in anything 'supernatural' is childish
by definition...it's a blanket statement that covers **anyone** who doesn't believe in hard atheism
you defend and support this statement...and in doing so make a logical error that undercuts your whole premise (and Dawkins as well)
**that's what we're talking about**
you are trying to Red Herring this discussion by doing definition gymnastics but the *core* is that you and Dawkins think that anyone who isn't a hard atheist is "childish"
its condescending bullshit...
there are all kinds of New Age concepts of a 'universal consciousness' that try to be based in science...several leading scientists have written about these topics informally, including Robert Oppenheimer & others who worked at the Eselen Institute in California.
you and Dawkins claim people are "childish" based on **your opinion** of the best way to answer questions beyond scientific inquiry
ITS YOUR OPINION...that's all it is...it's notion you can prove or ever hold a person accountable to in any way...
it has the level of relevance as you opinion as to the best Pizza Toppings
I wonder about internal security first and foremost on this stuff.
Who in the **Indiana State Police** is monitoring the usage of this data? Some IT dude? State Police are especially 'bro' types b/c they have an inferiority complex.
What's keeping them from just parking outside a popular youth area on a Friday night and lurk when things are slow down at the precinct?
I"m saying, I question whether the people who approved this system even **know** what it is capable of and how the cops out in the field are using it on a daily basis.
We already know the NSA used their system to check in on former lovers and other such tawdry stuff..
i came...
then bookmarked the post for posterity...it's like my own personal APK
wake me up when one of them walks on the moon or has a bot/rover sending selfie tweets from another panet
"hard landing" and "soft landing" is one way to think of it...
a better way might be "controlled landing"...but even that could be nitpicked
the difference is the level of control
think of it as the difference between a plane landing vs an object dropping by parachute
the implication is that if you're just doing it as a Cold War publicity stunt, you can get away with just flinging shit up there willy-nilly, whereas if you are actually trying to explore you use the landing sequence as an opportunity to iteratively improve mission capabilities for further exploration.
It was a radio transmitter packed into a cannon ball, just like Sputnik...not exactly 'space age' and certainly not requiring a modern computing device
Techies today have kind of fetishized the command line, but there are other ways to program a machine.
You can hurl a wad of electronics at a world and send pictures back or you can **EXPLORE**
Guess which one this China mission is?
It's not a ruse, but that doesn't mean those numbers aren't being misused anyhow.
You're right to be skeptical. Numbers about internet traffic are often misused in stories planted by PR to promote a political policy agenda.
Bots are a huge ammount of internet traffic...internet traffic we were *told* was so congested by lolcats, pron, & netflix that we were going to have to abandon Net Neutrality.
you're being dishonest...you made a logical leap w/ no foundation very casually...
I put where you're being manipulative in bold.
See, it's ***YOUR OPINION**** than anything not 'supernatural' is by definition then definitely 'magical'
but that's your opinion, based on a definition of magic
You could define 'magic' by Arthur C. Clarke's Three Laws.
One of which states:
Your definition is bullshit, because your argument is bullshit, based on a false dichotomy. Arthur C. Clark would disagree with your concept of magic, that you can't credibly deny.
Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of an 'god' and any logic that claims to have a better way to decide the question is just an opinion.
Arthur C. Clark would disagree with your concept of magic, that you can't credibly deny.
yes. this is absolutely correct and I think this every time I read anything about the 'holographic' universe
however, TFA, once you get past the headlines, doesn't really explain much beyond quoting the researchers on the work's *implications* on string theory and quantum mechanics in general
so, it really isn't that informative
what they're really saying is that the universe is ***made of light***....or say 'electro-magnetic radiation' instead of light b/c its more than visible light obv.
think of the edge of the universe as the edge of a black hole event horizon...in this case, a true 'black body'...at the event horizon, the last thing we can know about the matter/energy at all is the last "light" (aka electro magnetic radiation of all bands) before the very waves of light meet the infinite chaos that is the black hole event horizon. The moment it crosses it is instantaneously obliterated/absorbed by the nothingness/black hole
to put this into context, one branch of a part of high energy physics was founded on a distinction between some old ruling observation/theorem and then the Cosmic Microwave Background came along and flipped everything on its head...the universe is accelerating when it should be decelerating...that new energy pushing the acceleration is 'dark energy'
but, according to this research, we can still have a universe that is essentially made of electro-magnetic radiation...vibrating through the *medium* of the 1-dimensional "strings"...but that's another topic
I don't want to argue with you over what Dawkins said or didn't say...
His book is called "The God Delusion"...you can say "I am not insulting X" while you are *in fact* insulting X, just because you say you aren't doesn't mean that you aren't...
But I have made that point twice, and I think you get it...
Where do we go from here? Do we disagree or have we hammered it out?
no...he's not insulting them!
why, he's just saying they're deluuusional and full of poppycock!
calling someone "delusional" is insulting
also, adding a layer of abstraction..."he's not insulting all believers, just any believer that claims to be sane and not delusional" is bullshit....everyone sees throught it
either/or....stop equivicating and at least own what you believe
oh
ok
i guess this whole fucking conversation is over then!
c'mon man...you just threw more abstractions into the mix which makes for more possible vertices of misunderstanding in the giant graph that is this conversation...
ok...it is your opinion that 'supernatural' means 'magical' in this context...if you asked people who are believers, many might say 'supernatural' means something that is wholly bigger than in the 'meta' sense of all nature...or they might say something that inherently defines the laws of physics continuiously...
I just wanted you to know that you haven't proven shit, or contributed one thing to this conversation with your point about "magic"
the existence of god, to people who believe, is not a "hypothesis" that they are testing and have some statistical margin for error
the whole point of the concept of 'faith' is that you make a 'leap of faith'....
people who believe say they believe something unprovable via hypothesis b/c of personal experience and faith
i just proved you wrong...so what...your 'logic' is just your opinion of what would be the most 'logical' approach
all I have really proven is that you cannot PROVE or DISPROVE the existence of a supernatural god, buddah, Xenu or whatever with logic or scientific inquiry
you can't prove or disprove it
yeah, b/c young-earth creationists *never* thought of that objection...
"created with apparent age" is how they explain that...done...**dusts off hands**
*no matter what logic you use* they can just draw a circle around it and label it a "miracle"
just stop the whole line of thinking...stop trying to disprove something with logic that is personal opinion....
it does no good to argue with a pig: you both get dirty and the pig likes it!
thanks for chiming in w/ an explanation of the teapot thing...I still think its a complete waste of time to consider but thnx just the same
"teapot" is in the eye of the beholder...
what i mean is, "a teapot orbiting the earth" is pure poppycock (said with English accent and foppish hair)
the analogy is that believing in some 'god' is just as patently ludicrous (more English fopping) as believing in a teapot or whatever
it's just like the Flying Spagetti Monster analogy
It's all just opinion too...it's your **opinion** that the proper analogy to believing in 'god' is [insert something ludicrous and nonsensical]
take **any belief system** hell even theistic Satanism...they all will tell you that their belief is logical or 'makes sense' given some precepts or inherent 'truths'
analogies don't prove anything...they are **opinions** of correlation meant to make a falsifiable point & aid understanding
Hey seriously that was a nice read. Thanks for commenting.
I take solace in the fact that Dawkins' notions are in fact not representative of the scientific community.
In my graduate program, I knew a few 'outspoken' atheists who loved to talk Dawkins stuff and we never, not once, got into any unsavory business when having philosophical discussions. They were cool as long as they saw I was cool. Very respectful if obstinate.
It is precisely because there are so many well thought out notions that don't fit into spirituality OR Dawkins' dogma that I compared him to Rush Limbaugh in the first place. He should know better.
*posts link to philosopher's wind-bag attempt to logically "prove" god cant exist via teapot anaology*
BAM!
*wins /.*
Look, you didn't just PWN me by pasting a link and claiming victory without any context, discussion of my points, or any discussion.
That link goes to the wikipedia article on Russell's Teapot, which is some analogy that also involves some notion that b/c god is outside of science then those claiming god exists have the burden of proof.
1st. linking to an analogy that attempts to prove god doesn't exist doesn't prove or disprove my point that science/logic *cannot* prove or disprove it either way. You have to actually engage the topic and show why this teapot analogy is absolutely 100% perfectly proving that science is capable and indeed has proven all gods of all notions all over the world have not and will not ever exist
2nd I AGREE that if I was trying to convince you that Flying Spagetti Monster existed, then YES **I WOULD HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF**
But not every person who thinks a supernatural being exists is even religious or is trying to convince you to agree with them.
No one really gives a shit what *you personally* think in this case.
This is about boundaries, limits and **claims that have been made**
Dawkins made some very outlandish claims that have made him rich and famous...they do not withstand scrutiny and make us all worse off and dumber for having heard them.