welcome to present your evidence to the contrary. But, it's my experience that the people who disbelieve in the reality of climate change are either known liars or have been duped by known liars..
Believing in the reality of climate change is not a "single thing".
Whilst only liars and dupes will deny the whole thing, there is plenty of room for differences of opinion about the detail and the long term prognosis.
Unfortunately some of the more "virulent" environmentalists take the line that anyone who doesn't agree with any particular point that they make is a flat out "denier".
One also has to be careful about non-experts who cite "the overwhelming opinions of scientists" because scientists (and those who fund them) are heavily influenced by trends and once climate change became the prevailing orthodoxy there was a tendency not to do research or even to conceal data that might contradict it.
Ironically in the early days of the issue exactly the same forces worked in the opposite direction.
I am not an expert on this issue but I am a scientist who has published in major journals in Physics and Computer Science and I have seen enough over the years to know a scientific bandwagon when I see one!
The idea that I can only point out that a group adheres to an ideology without understanding it if I also produce a list of every single other group that does the same thing is absurd.
and is also an obvious strawman.
There is no requirement to point it out in respect of every possible group - but that does not absolve you of bigotry if your focus is unreasonable.
and you misunderstand the point of the "No True Scotsman" concept.
The point is that a Scotsman is simply someone born in Scotland. Scotland does not have an official code of conduct or belief.
Christianity and Islam however DO have texts (New Textament and Koran) and primary exemplary lives (Jesus and Mohammed) against which you can judge who is a true Christian or Muslim.
Any Christian who behaves 100% like Jesus is a true Christian.
Any Muslim who behaves 100% like Mohammed is a true muslim.
Now look at a comparison of Jesus and Mohammed and see what I mean:
Only to the extent that the same can be said of Christianity.
Well you yourself said:
" The whole point is that they - the alt-right, much of the religious right - are AT ODDS with Christianity. It's as though Jesus's teachings are forbidden knowledge."
So you are NOT saying the same about Christianity.
and therefore this paragraph:
Even setting aside the Holocaust,... went right into the mid-20th century.
is actually irrelevant to the point in hand because you have already admitted that none of this appalling behaviour has anything to do with the teachings of Jesus.
Now you went on to say that the same could be said of Islam.
It is this which is now at issue. In other words how well ISIS ( and other Islamic terror groups) align with true Islam. Now I gave a quote from Mark Twain - which showed that ISIS style beliefs an actions existed 150 years ago in what was the major Islamic power at the time.
Now if that doesn't persuade you then we can go to the Quran and other primary sources and top Islamic scholars' interpretations.
You can see a thorough analysis of this point in the sequence of videos that begins here:
I have no problem criticizing Muslim extremists for example. While recognizing that their beliefs are at odds with Islam.
Actually you are incorrect there. Their beliefs and practices chime pretty consistently with early Islamic history - and in fact most Islamic history until the 1920's.
Impact factors are bad - but this Chinese idea is just a thousand times worse.
I'm disappointed that techdirt saw fit to report it as in any way positive.
The key problem here is that it is impossible to truly judge the value of any research until so much time has passed that the judgement itself is of little value.
As for China being a leader - well they are certainly taking over the infrastructure of research on the back of sheer numbers and money - but (probably because of the nature of the Chinese educational system) we have yet to see much genuine originality coming from there.
With modern encryption algorithms there is no way to recover a private key unless the deployment of the encryption is flawed.
Any responsible company would have some experts employed specifically to try and find such flaws (and immediately correct them).
There is one thing that the tech companies could do on behalf of the government.
This would be to provide a spoofed (extra) public key for a user who has been targeted by a court order (just like an old fashioned wiretap). Thus any communicatiopn sent to the user would be readable because there would always be an extra copy encrypted with the government key.
This assumes that the tech company is managing the public keys. If the users do this themselves then it cannot be done.
It cannot decrypt communications sent prior to the court order.
It cannot decrypt communications sent only to other users.
It does not undermine the encryption scheme itself.
It does not satisfy what the government seems to want....
Out of curiosity AC, how exactly does the fact people join groups without understanding what they're signing up for in any way make noticing that people do it an act of bigotry?
It is bigotry (or at least hypocrisy) when you point it out in respect of some groups and not others. Especially when you ignore the fact that you are doing it yourself.
The only facet of human existence that you can remotely consider unbiased and apolitical is death. Whether you are a Christian conservative CEO or a socialist janitor, you will die one day
Re: Re: Should probably depend on the nationality and residence of the target
Why should the general human rights enshrined in the Constitution not apply to any human being? (We keep losing them in the States, too,
The reason you are losing them in the US is precisely BECAUSE the constitution is not applied to every human being everywhere.
The non-applicability of the constitution to non-US nationals together with its non-applicabilty outside the US provides the thin end of a very convenient wedge that is steadily being used to destroy most of the rights granted by the constitution.
Already being "near the (physical) border" is sufficent to remove constitutional protections. The next step (if not already taken) will be "near the (cyberspace) border", which in practice == everywhere.
It's still theft of a kind, in other words.
Intellectual property is STILL property that someone worked to create and arrange,
It isn't property.
Intellectual property is a term invented by people like you to obscure the fact that it has no legal standing.
Legally there are copyrights, there are patents and there are trademarks. Each of these is a quite separate concept and none of them resembles ordinary property at more than a very superficial level.
In order to actually steal a copyright you would need to divert the entire revenue stream to yourself.
Simply violating the copyright is way short of that.
Hitchens invented his razor just to make it easier to argue his own positions. This usually also involved a strawman in place of his opponents actual arguments.
Of course it fails when you apply it in serious mathematical or philosophical discussion.
I also note that here Hitchens' razor is inaccurately expressed
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
since any proposition CAN be asserted without evidence including propositions that are true.
Interestingly it also flatly contradicts another popular saying around here:
and one which many very serious mathematicians actually avoid using - see for example this comment about Kurt Godel (from the Wikipedia page about the Continuum hypothesis).
"Gödel was a platonist and therefore had no problems with asserting the truth and falsehood of statements independent of their provability."
On the post: SLAPP Alert: Professor Sues Another For Defamation Over Competing Academic Papers
Re: Re:
welcome to present your evidence to the contrary. But, it's my experience that the people who disbelieve in the reality of climate change are either known liars or have been duped by known liars..
Believing in the reality of climate change is not a "single thing".
Whilst only liars and dupes will deny the whole thing, there is plenty of room for differences of opinion about the detail and the long term prognosis.
Unfortunately some of the more "virulent" environmentalists take the line that anyone who doesn't agree with any particular point that they make is a flat out "denier".
One also has to be careful about non-experts who cite "the overwhelming opinions of scientists" because scientists (and those who fund them) are heavily influenced by trends and once climate change became the prevailing orthodoxy there was a tendency not to do research or even to conceal data that might contradict it.
Ironically in the early days of the issue exactly the same forces worked in the opposite direction.
I am not an expert on this issue but I am a scientist who has published in major journals in Physics and Computer Science and I have seen enough over the years to know a scientific bandwagon when I see one!
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The idea that I can only point out that a group adheres to an ideology without understanding it if I also produce a list of every single other group that does the same thing is absurd.
and is also an obvious strawman.
There is no requirement to point it out in respect of every possible group - but that does not absolve you of bigotry if your focus is unreasonable.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
clearly the No True Scotsman fallacy only applies to conditions of birth;
No true Scotsman applies wherever there is no adequate pre-existing definition of the category that resolves the issue in question.
Thus the "No true Scotsman" fallacy does not apply to the statements:
No true pacifist would start a nuclear war.
No true vegetarian would eat a steak.
No true Celtic supporter would cheer on Rangers in the old firm game.
No true Scotsman would have been born to Chinese parents in Los Angeles and spent all his life in California.
Do you get it now???
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and you misunderstand the point of the "No True Scotsman" concept.
The point is that a Scotsman is simply someone born in Scotland. Scotland does not have an official code of conduct or belief.
Christianity and Islam however DO have texts (New Textament and Koran) and primary exemplary lives (Jesus and Mohammed) against which you can judge who is a true Christian or Muslim.
Any Christian who behaves 100% like Jesus is a true Christian.
Any Muslim who behaves 100% like Mohammed is a true muslim.
Now look at a comparison of Jesus and Mohammed and see what I mean:
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/jesus-muhammad.aspx
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only to the extent that the same can be said of Christianity.
Well you yourself said:
" The whole point is that they - the alt-right, much of the religious right - are AT ODDS with Christianity. It's as though Jesus's teachings are forbidden knowledge."
So you are NOT saying the same about Christianity.
and therefore this paragraph:
Even setting aside the Holocaust,... went right into the mid-20th century.
is actually irrelevant to the point in hand because you have already admitted that none of this appalling behaviour has anything to do with the teachings of Jesus.
Now you went on to say that the same could be said of Islam.
It is this which is now at issue. In other words how well ISIS ( and other Islamic terror groups) align with true Islam. Now I gave a quote from Mark Twain - which showed that ISIS style beliefs an actions existed 150 years ago in what was the major Islamic power at the time.
Now if that doesn't persuade you then we can go to the Quran and other primary sources and top Islamic scholars' interpretations.
You can see a thorough analysis of this point in the sequence of videos that begins here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mSLSzugDfw
In short the conclusion is that it is the moderates who are the EULA Muslims and the extremists who have read and understood the authentic texts.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no problem criticizing Muslim extremists for example. While recognizing that their beliefs are at odds with Islam.
Actually you are incorrect there. Their beliefs and practices chime pretty consistently with early Islamic history - and in fact most Islamic history until the 1920's.
Se for example Mark Twain:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3176/3176-h/3176-h.htm#ch34
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you don't separate the IRA bombings from the rest of Christianity?
The IRA were in fact Marxists - not really friendly to Roman catholics at all.
On the post: Move By Top Chinese University Could Mean Journal Impact Factors Begin To Lose Their Influence
Wow
I'm disappointed that techdirt saw fit to report it as in any way positive.
The key problem here is that it is impossible to truly judge the value of any research until so much time has passed that the judgement itself is of little value.
As for China being a leader - well they are certainly taking over the infrastructure of research on the back of sheer numbers and money - but (probably because of the nature of the Chinese educational system) we have yet to see much genuine originality coming from there.
On the post: BlackBerry CEO Promises To Try To Break Customers' Encryption If The US Gov't Asks Him To
Re: Re: Deployment vs encryption
So…a backdoor?
Not a general backdoor - only a backdoor into communications to a particular user.
Not a compromise to the encryption algorithm either - only to a particular mode of deployment.
On the post: BlackBerry CEO Promises To Try To Break Customers' Encryption If The US Gov't Asks Him To
Re: Deployment vs encryption
On the post: BlackBerry CEO Promises To Try To Break Customers' Encryption If The US Gov't Asks Him To
Deployment vs encryption
With modern encryption algorithms there is no way to recover a private key unless the deployment of the encryption is flawed.
Any responsible company would have some experts employed specifically to try and find such flaws (and immediately correct them).
There is one thing that the tech companies could do on behalf of the government.
This would be to provide a spoofed (extra) public key for a user who has been targeted by a court order (just like an old fashioned wiretap). Thus any communicatiopn sent to the user would be readable because there would always be an extra copy encrypted with the government key.
This assumes that the tech company is managing the public keys. If the users do this themselves then it cannot be done.
It cannot decrypt communications sent prior to the court order.
It cannot decrypt communications sent only to other users.
It does not undermine the encryption scheme itself.
It does not satisfy what the government seems to want....
This would result in every communication
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
Out of curiosity AC, how exactly does the fact people join groups without understanding what they're signing up for in any way make noticing that people do it an act of bigotry?
It is bigotry (or at least hypocrisy) when you point it out in respect of some groups and not others. Especially when you ignore the fact that you are doing it yourself.
On the post: Dennis Prager Sues YouTube For Filtering His Videos In A Way He Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only facet of human existence that you can remotely consider unbiased and apolitical is death. Whether you are a Christian conservative CEO or a socialist janitor, you will die one day
Not so fast...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality
On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Case Involving US Demands For Emails Stored Overseas
Re: Re: Should probably depend on the nationality and residence of the target
Why should the general human rights enshrined in the Constitution not apply to any human being? (We keep losing them in the States, too,
The reason you are losing them in the US is precisely BECAUSE the constitution is not applied to every human being everywhere.
The non-applicability of the constitution to non-US nationals together with its non-applicabilty outside the US provides the thin end of a very convenient wedge that is steadily being used to destroy most of the rights granted by the constitution.
Already being "near the (physical) border" is sufficent to remove constitutional protections. The next step (if not already taken) will be "near the (cyberspace) border", which in practice == everywhere.
On the post: New Copyright Trolling Operation Lowers The Settlement Demands And Calls Them Fines To Improve Conversion Rate
Re: It's still theft of a kind, in other words.
It's still theft of a kind, in other words. Intellectual property is STILL property that someone worked to create and arrange,
It isn't property. Intellectual property is a term invented by people like you to obscure the fact that it has no legal standing.
Legally there are copyrights, there are patents and there are trademarks. Each of these is a quite separate concept and none of them resembles ordinary property at more than a very superficial level.
In order to actually steal a copyright you would need to divert the entire revenue stream to yourself.
Simply violating the copyright is way short of that.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
Hitchens invented his razor just to make it easier to argue his own positions. This usually also involved a strawman in place of his opponents actual arguments.
Of course it fails when you apply it in serious mathematical or philosophical discussion.
I also note that here Hitchens' razor is inaccurately expressed What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence since any proposition CAN be asserted without evidence including propositions that are true.
Interestingly it also flatly contradicts another popular saying around here:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: and one which many very serious mathematicians actually avoid using
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
and one which many very serious mathematicians actually avoid using - see for example this comment about Kurt Godel (from the Wikipedia page about the Continuum hypothesis).
"Gödel was a platonist and therefore had no problems with asserting the truth and falsehood of statements independent of their provability."
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
however I propose keeping it, instead of dismissing it, because it seems like it'd be so very useful.
and the people whose assertion you use it on could of course do the same themselves.
Next >>