wonder if he knows that, if one obeys the law in one country, and not obey the law in another, when one is doing business with both, one are engaging in a version of racist discrimination. one either stand up for universal principles regardless of law, until one is forced , or one obey at will and renounce any notion of universal rights.
'non fiction'? or alleged facts selectively chosen to fit particular interpretations and prejudices?
- why leave chess out ? chess databases of human player moves are in fact sort of 'non fiction'. i will ask again, how will so called artificial intelligence perform by choosing average human moves in such databases? lol
- do you have anything to say about non chess part of my comment?
basically take a large sample of alleged interactions of humans as imagined by a particular group of writers, make statistical analysis of them, make predictions based numbers and averages spewed out.
in other words, average of prejudices of writers who chose to use a website, is going to to be, so called artificial intelligence's, idea of human behavior. oh my! how artificial! how the science has advanced! - btw just imagine this. how will so called artificial intelligence do if while playing chess, it played the move that average human will take(as derived from all human player games as stored in chess databases) in a given position .
if we stick to facts as opposed to hype, we learn that while use of methods to go round the blocked media increased, it did not change much. nor should it. same thing happened after the so called 'arab spring', all those stories about westernized arab liberals chasing away mubarak using social media. (some western media even calling it the twitter revolution.) then parties representing them got very little votes, while muslim brotherhood and other islamist parties won big. and then military took back the power.
westerners have highly exaggerated notion of power of media, in their own countries and elsewhere. in their minds success of unwanted politicians, whether they be foreign 'dictators', or local right/left wingers, are due mainly to propaganda for them, and/or censorship of opponents, through media. not so.
if you assume certain 'starting state' and 'laws' you get certain results if you work them out. if you assume other 'states' and 'laws' you get other results. even more fundamentally we assume we can fully 'know' and 'conceptualize' what makes up a 'state' and what 'laws' are in order to build models. this can be false. - we have only vague idea about dark energy and dark matter which (allegedly) make up over 95% of universe, and half of the other matter not known too. quantum mechanics and general relativity conflict with each other . (that is from few years ago, to few years hence, when we find further things, and explain other things out of darkness) that is just physics .... don't get started on chemistry, geology, biology, etc etc . - and then there are old unanswerable philosophical counters to empiricism, a necessity for science. for instance there may be nothing outside our minds and 'universe' a mere illusion, and even existence of our minds can be logically questioned into non existence. - all this is entertaining and challenging and worth think about. but perhaps not worrying too much about.
it is always better to doubt anyone, be it scientist or priest, who says he/she knows anything for certain, whether it be existence(or non existence) of god , climate change, or earth. much better to care about your family and friends who are entertaining , challenging, and certainly worth think about
apple( and other big techs) has a long record of private cooperation with usa government and number of other governments on allowing access to data that should have been private( even without proper warrants). while apple's public action here is praiseworthy (imo), it does not seem to spring from a well articulated principled stance. it seems to have come from a combination of individual decisions, made in rather confused way, due to variety of motives . that is not the correct way to clarify (and pick fight on ) a major governing principle of society, individuals and corporations.
aim of google seems to be, not to make money, but be god, omniscient and almighty; to know everything at very point of information creation, transmission, storage and even deletion; to do everything from gossiping to make humans immortal.
hubris much? enjoy the greek tragedy in the making.
when doing something new, should we begin with an untested unknown technology, or with existing technology modified to meet the need ? imo the second method. and in this case, choosing that way would probably get us to mars in decade or three, but choosing first will only delay it ever further (though it would allow us to paint and write cool impotent pictures to pass the time).
and we are not doing a new potential technology a service by saddling it with solving complex task start with.
the secular, so called 'liberal', establishment governing usa and rest of west are past masters at manipulating public opinion.
they propagate an ideological narrative that says 'we were and are always the good guys, and live in the best state possible ', regardless of facts. they scare the people by exaggerating threats( from terrorists and other states like russia and iran) as existential threats. they hide the cost of wars(hide both blood and money lost). they feed mass welfare appetites making them feel freely entitled to lots of things, that need to be fed by looting others in other countries. they use to their benefit the prevailing west's superficial culture of death and waste, with its lack of moral foundations and ignorance of past traditions. they distort whatever traces of tradition that remain selectively ( so its ok to kill millions of unborn regardless of bible, but israel must be kept for jews because that is what must happen before second coming ). etc etc..
so wonder american sheeple elect mass murders like bush, clintons, obama etc . and it is no surprise they are willing to give up freedom and privacy, to get spied on to have an illusion of security, from a small threat.
so much for "land of the free and the home of the brave"!
-- btw there are real threats from terrorists and others, but they are not as big as propagated.
what is the story here? there is no interesting story if finders use content of a purse with id, credit cards, and money, left unattended in a public place(esp in a unsavory place), much more interesting story would be if anyone informed the account owners about the information leak and when(similar to finders returning the purse unused)
implied argument that underlie this story, that one of the victims or victim's family has a morally superior right/claim over others(which includes both other victims or possible future direct or indirect victims) on the choice of legal process and procedure, is simply wrong.
btw just to be clear, i support apple's stance on this issue on principle.
it seems news about science generally, and astronomy in particular, require lots of eye and mind candy, with absurd metaphors and artist renderings. do such polarizations serve any purpose? those who are really interested probably can do without the sugra, and those who are only superficially interested probably get confused idea about the concepts, not to mention bad sugary substance inside their brain.
does that mean they would have complied with government request, if it was easy to do as in previous cases? as i said , apple should clearly articulate the principles on which it is basing its policy, instead of deciding case by case ( based on what seems to be variety of other factors )
apple( and other big techs) was happy to comply with governments in earlier cases. what changed? falling sales? and stock price? conscience? in any case, how to act on this issue should be based on well articulated principles, not ad hoc decisions by ceos and executives( which can change with the wind).
all your 'arguments' ( to be generous to call them that )were answered previously.
you are yet to answer any of my arguments, but continues to display your ignorance, irrationality and twisted morality.
and i have nothing but contempt for a person like you who justifies child killing, torture and invasions etc etc ( all of which are committed by western establishment and isis). you( and Anonymous) support one side, i none. you must love living off blood of innocents.!
to fully appreciate the movie the way it was originally appreciated, minds of fans must be restored the state they were when they 1st saw the movie. bodies too, since everything is ultimately dependent on physical and biological state of body. while we are about it, let us restore the whole world and the cultural climate too.
you display the same low level of education that most americans display. you are free to continue your display of ignorant irrationality by replying without understanding what is written.
i said Anonymous is a tool of western 'liberal' establishment, because it is ignoring its crimes, like drone killing of children, but branding as isis, and trying to ban those who directly oppose and resist the same establishment and its crimes, by mere tweets ( if you are ignorant of their much publicized campaign doing this i suggest you look it up starting with slashdot posts on the subject). Anonymous is clearly favoring one side on that single issue (note single not some 'third' or separate issue). you are free to ignorantly, irrationally, and incorrectly, call that a logical fallacy all you want.
there is no false equivalence, there is equivalence, period. crimes of western establishment and isis are comparable in horror. how exactly is any crime worse than drone killing of children? do untangle and clarify your twisted morality. if anything, while quality of evil is similar, as far as quantity goes western establishment is far worse.
Anonymous is the self named prosecutor, judge, and executor, of those it attacks. as a defender of Anonymous why don't you reveal all the tweets of those it tried to brand and ban from twitter? in what way are all of them isis supporters? and in what way are those tweets and tweeters guilty of crimes worse than drone killing of children? do explain. don't run from questions.
btw do you support banning people for even tweeting support for violence(if there are any such tweets)? if so are you in favor of banning those who support violent actions of western military in variety of countries? or banning people who support torture camps? you know that would include almost whole of western establishment. or do you side with one side over another? as in drone killing children is ok, systematic torture and killing of unarmed prisoners without judicial oversight is ok, bombing whole towns to dust is ok , but terrorist attacks in paris is not ok, torturing and killing of unarmed prisoners(by other side) is not ok,
twisted much? irrational ignorance like yours does that !
did you miss the significance of quotation marks on 'liberal' ? or are you too ignorant of that too?
btw someone(like you) who supports Anonymous campaign of branding and banning those who merely tweet resistance to western crimes like invasions, drone killing of children, torture camps, etc etc is no liberal(without quotation marks). that further confirmed by your irrational confused sentences about my alleged support for dictatorships etc etc( since all that is totally contrary to anything i wrote).
btw nobody is going to miss establishment tools like you wherever you are.
you seem to be a typical product of american 'education' . read and understand before replying if possible. i said Annoymous is applying double standards in favor of western 'liberal' establishment; doing nothing against establishment criminals like clintons, american military that drone kill children, and those who run torture camps, etc (all of which btw are crimes as bad or worse, as any committed by anyone else), while it is on the attack against those who merely tweet support for resisting those same crimes( branding them as isis), or against trump . read carefully. or you are free to show your irrational ignorance again
Slashdot Mirror
by this, one can get a false impression that this sort of thing is confined to a "chinese manufacturer ", when it isn't.
wonder if he knows that, if one obeys the law in one country, and not obey the law in another, when one is doing business with both, one are engaging in a version of racist discrimination.
one either stand up for universal principles regardless of law, until one is forced , or one obey at will and renounce any notion of universal rights.
'non fiction'? or alleged facts selectively chosen to fit particular interpretations and prejudices?
-
why leave chess out ? chess databases of human player moves are in fact sort of 'non fiction'. i will ask again, how will so called artificial intelligence perform by choosing average human moves in such databases? lol
-
do you have anything to say about non chess part of my comment?
basically take a large sample of alleged interactions of humans as imagined by a particular group of writers, make statistical analysis of them, make predictions based numbers and averages spewed out.
in other words, average of prejudices of writers who chose to use a website, is going to to be, so called artificial intelligence's, idea of human behavior.
oh my! how artificial! how the science has advanced!
-
btw just imagine this.
how will so called artificial intelligence do if while playing chess, it played the move that average human will take(as derived from all human player games as stored in chess databases) in a given position .
if we stick to facts as opposed to hype, we learn that while use of methods to go round the blocked media increased, it did not change much. nor should it.
same thing happened after the so called 'arab spring', all those stories about westernized arab liberals chasing away mubarak using social media. (some western media even calling it the twitter revolution.) then parties representing them got very little votes, while muslim brotherhood and other islamist parties won big. and then military took back the power.
westerners have highly exaggerated notion of power of media, in their own countries and elsewhere. in their minds success of unwanted politicians, whether they be foreign 'dictators', or local right/left wingers, are due mainly to propaganda for them, and/or censorship of opponents, through media. not so.
people and issues are more complex than that.
if you assume certain 'starting state' and 'laws' you get certain results if you work them out. if you assume other 'states' and 'laws' you get other results. ... don't get started on chemistry, geology, biology, etc etc .
even more fundamentally we assume we can fully 'know' and 'conceptualize' what makes up a 'state' and what 'laws' are in order to build models. this can be false.
-
we have only vague idea about dark energy and dark matter which (allegedly) make up over 95% of universe, and half of the other matter not known too.
quantum mechanics and general relativity conflict with each other . (that is from few years ago, to few years hence, when we find further things, and explain other things out of darkness)
that is just physics .
-
and then there are old unanswerable philosophical counters to empiricism, a necessity for science.
for instance there may be nothing outside our minds and 'universe' a mere illusion, and even existence of our minds can be logically questioned into non existence.
-
all this is entertaining and challenging and worth think about.
but perhaps not worrying too much about.
it is always better to doubt anyone, be it scientist or priest, who says he/she knows anything for certain, whether it be existence(or non existence) of god , climate change, or earth. much better to care about your family and friends who are entertaining , challenging, and certainly worth think about
apple( and other big techs) has a long record of private cooperation with usa government and number of other governments on allowing access to data that should have been private( even without proper warrants).
while apple's public action here is praiseworthy (imo), it does not seem to spring from a well articulated principled stance. it seems to have come from a combination of individual decisions, made in rather confused way, due to variety of motives .
that is not the correct way to clarify (and pick fight on ) a major governing principle of society, individuals and corporations.
aim of google seems to be, not to make money, but be god, omniscient and almighty; to know everything at very point of information creation, transmission, storage and even deletion; to do everything from gossiping to make humans immortal.
hubris much?
enjoy the greek tragedy in the making.
when doing something new, should we begin with an untested unknown technology, or with existing technology modified to meet the need ?
imo the second method. and in this case, choosing that way would probably get us to mars in decade or three, but choosing first will only delay it ever further (though it would allow us to paint and write cool impotent pictures to pass the time).
and we are not doing a new potential technology a service by saddling it with solving complex task start with.
the secular, so called 'liberal', establishment governing usa and rest of west are past masters at manipulating public opinion.
they propagate an ideological narrative that says 'we were and are always the good guys, and live in the best state possible ', regardless of facts.
they scare the people by exaggerating threats( from terrorists and other states like russia and iran) as existential threats.
they hide the cost of wars(hide both blood and money lost).
they feed mass welfare appetites making them feel freely entitled to lots of things, that need to be fed by looting others in other countries.
they use to their benefit the prevailing west's superficial culture of death and waste, with its lack of moral foundations and ignorance of past traditions. they distort whatever traces of tradition that remain selectively ( so its ok to kill millions of unborn regardless of bible, but israel must be kept for jews because that is what must happen before second coming ).
etc etc..
so wonder american sheeple elect mass murders like bush, clintons, obama etc .
and it is no surprise they are willing to give up freedom and privacy, to get spied on to have an illusion of security, from a small threat.
so much for "land of the free and the home of the brave"!
--
btw there are real threats from terrorists and others, but they are not as big as propagated.
what is the story here? there is no interesting story if finders use content of a purse with id, credit cards, and money, left unattended in a public place(esp in a unsavory place),
much more interesting story would be if anyone informed the account owners about the information leak and when(similar to finders returning the purse unused)
russia may be broke to do space right, but at least they are still able actually send people to space, unlike some other countries.
implied argument that underlie this story, that one of the victims or victim's family has a morally superior right/claim over others(which includes both other victims or possible future direct or indirect victims) on the choice of legal process and procedure, is simply wrong.
btw just to be clear, i support apple's stance on this issue on principle.
oops "popularizations
it seems news about science generally, and astronomy in particular, require lots of eye and mind candy, with absurd metaphors and artist renderings.
do such polarizations serve any purpose?
those who are really interested probably can do without the sugra, and those who are only superficially interested probably get confused idea about the concepts, not to mention bad sugary substance inside their brain.
does that mean they would have complied with government request, if it was easy to do as in previous cases?
as i said , apple should clearly articulate the principles on which it is basing its policy, instead of deciding case by case ( based on what seems to be variety of other factors )
apple( and other big techs) was happy to comply with governments in earlier cases. what changed? falling sales? and stock price? conscience?
in any case, how to act on this issue should be based on well articulated principles, not ad hoc decisions by ceos and executives( which can change with the wind).
who said i support trump ?
i said Anonymous is acting like a tool of western 'liberal' establishment against its opponents
thanks for admitting that you have run out of all rational arguments against me and is reduced to finding fault with my capitalization.
all your 'arguments' ( to be generous to call them that )were answered previously.
you are yet to answer any of my arguments, but continues to display your ignorance, irrationality and twisted morality.
and i have nothing but contempt for a person like you who justifies child killing, torture and invasions etc etc ( all of which are committed by western establishment and isis). you( and Anonymous) support one side, i none.
you must love living off blood of innocents.!
to fully appreciate the movie the way it was originally appreciated, minds of fans must be restored the state they were when they 1st saw the movie. bodies too, since everything is ultimately dependent on physical and biological state of body. while we are about it, let us restore the whole world and the cultural climate too.
you display the same low level of education that most americans display.
you are free to continue your display of ignorant irrationality by replying without understanding what is written.
i said Anonymous is a tool of western 'liberal' establishment, because it is ignoring its crimes, like drone killing of children, but branding as isis, and trying to ban those who directly oppose and resist the same establishment and its crimes, by mere tweets ( if you are ignorant of their much publicized campaign doing this i suggest you look it up starting with slashdot posts on the subject). Anonymous is clearly favoring one side on that single issue (note single not some 'third' or separate issue).
you are free to ignorantly, irrationally, and incorrectly, call that a logical fallacy all you want.
there is no false equivalence, there is equivalence, period. crimes of western establishment and isis are comparable in horror. how exactly is any crime worse than drone killing of children? do untangle and clarify your twisted morality. if anything, while quality of evil is similar, as far as quantity goes western establishment is far worse.
Anonymous is the self named prosecutor, judge, and executor, of those it attacks. as a defender of Anonymous why don't you reveal all the tweets of those it tried to brand and ban from twitter? in what way are all of them isis supporters? and in what way are those tweets and tweeters guilty of crimes worse than drone killing of children? do explain. don't run from questions.
btw do you support banning people for even tweeting support for violence(if there are any such tweets)? if so are you in favor of banning those who support violent actions of western military in variety of countries? or banning people who support torture camps? you know that would include almost whole of western establishment. or do you side with one side over another? as in drone killing children is ok, systematic torture and killing of unarmed prisoners without judicial oversight is ok, bombing whole towns to dust is ok , but terrorist attacks in paris is not ok, torturing and killing of unarmed prisoners(by other side) is not ok,
twisted much? irrational ignorance like yours does that !
unsurprised laughter is the most rational reply to ignorance.
did you miss the significance of quotation marks on 'liberal' ? or are you too ignorant of that too?
btw someone(like you) who supports Anonymous campaign of branding and banning those who merely tweet resistance to western crimes like invasions, drone killing of children, torture camps, etc etc is no liberal(without quotation marks). that further confirmed by your irrational confused sentences about my alleged support for dictatorships etc etc( since all that is totally contrary to anything i wrote).
btw nobody is going to miss establishment tools like you wherever you are.
you seem to be a typical product of american 'education' . read and understand before replying if possible.
i said Annoymous is applying double standards in favor of western 'liberal' establishment; doing nothing against establishment criminals like clintons, american military that drone kill children, and those who run torture camps, etc (all of which btw are crimes as bad or worse, as any committed by anyone else), while it is on the attack against those who merely tweet support for resisting those same crimes( branding them as isis), or against trump .
read carefully. or you are free to show your irrational ignorance again