Grass doesn't radiate light either. How you define a thing's color would be the downfall of descriptive language if it were widely adopted. "is blue" has always been shorthand for "predominately reflects light of about a 475 nm wavelength"; that's why we can use the term to describe things that aren't glowing. The tiger is orange, the grass is green, the blood is red. Those words have never applied exclusively to things that produce their own light, and besides that this whole thing has nothing to do with grass and sky sharing a color.
"The sky is blue" is, indeed, an objective statement, as the phrase "is blue", in scientific terms, means that the thing in question favors wavelengths of 475 nm over others. Grass, on the other hand, primarily reflects light of wavelength 510 nm. This could be verified even by a society of blind people.
And, again, you're totally wrong about where the color of the sky comes from. It has nothing at all to do with the color of the ocean. Look up Rayleigh scattering.
Yes, of course it's really about control, but they're not going to come right out and say that. We have to pretend their stated reasons are their actual reasons in order to have anything resembling a debate.
Torturing (or at least specifically endorsing the torture of) an incredibly pious follower on a bet with the devil struck me as objectionable for some reason. Call me crazy, but I think that if your child says that they love you, you should respond in kind, rather than saying "prove it", throwing their teddy bear in a fire, destroying their bedroom, and giving them smallpox.
Yes, I know how color works. That doesn't change that its color is not the same as the color of grass. (Also, you're wrong about the cause; it's the gases in the atmosphere that make it blue, not a reflection of the ocean)
I don't really expect them to change their minds when presented with logic, I just like the fun of arguing without the challenge. I also played through Halo on easy and memorized the money cheat for Zoo Tycoon. Why work for something when it can be handed to you?
There's a sliding scale between abolishing the no-fly list and leaving it as is. Having its contents make sense would be a start. There's no reason why having a political, religious, dietary, and monetary moderate on the no-fly list makes even a little bit of sense, and having a senator on it even less so. In light of that, they deserve to have it used as a moral bludgeon, and treating such a use as a catch-22 is either a logical fallacy or an admission that you have even less faith in the level of competence the government is capable of than I do.
"From a logical standpoint, given a God-created universe and a God-inspired written message with over 1,500 verses that specifically talk about the natural world, it is only logical that God's world and God's word would speak the same message."
Yes, given those things, such a conclusion is logical. It's unfortunate that we haven't found a God-created universe yet, but such is life.
"You yourself start from a position of bias that you are unwilling to admit, from a position that automatically accepts that the biblical God does not exist. That invalidates any claim of impartiality you may have, as well as any accusations of partiality you make toward others."
Not every atheist was raised atheist, you know. Some of us spent a good portion of our lives trying to twist our brains into the same pretzel our parents had twisted theirs into. I, myself, independently reinvented deism at the age of twelve in an attempt to justify a belief in God. My current atheism is in spite of a bias towards God, not because of a bias against him.
"To be truly objective, one must allow for all possibilities, both natural and supernatural."
One must also be willing to accurately evaluate the probabilities of differing explanations based on other knowledge. For example, if I were to say that grass appears green because the sky is green and the grass is just reflecting it, then someone dismissing my claim because they know the sky to be blue is performing an objective analysis. If I respond to that person by claiming that if the sky weren't green the grass would have nothing to reflect, I'm just being an idiot.
"You have faith that the people you interact with here and elsewhere online are, for the most part, who they say they are."
No, I don't. I know that they say they are who they say they are. I don't give a rat's ass who they really are, because that's not who I'm talking to.
"You have faith that your body will continue to work."
No, I don't, and as soon as I can afford to and the parts are on the market I fully intend to replace all my organs with more reliable manmade alternatives. Until then I'm grateful for every day my piece-of-shit heart hasn't given out.
"You have faith that your computer will work every time you turn it on."
No, I don't. I learned how to fix computers so I wouldn't need faith.
"You have faith that cities will still be where they have always been."
No, I don't, which is why I don't like seeing our government antagonizing China or Russia.
"You have faith that you can find what you're looking for at the store."
I have plenty of prior experience that leads me to believe that an open store has things to buy, but if I'm looking for a specific thing I try not to predict its presence before confirming it. After all, I have plenty of experience with stores not having a particular item.
"You have faith that the people you know in real life are really like what you see of them."
I'm not even sure what that means. I know that they make good conversation and I enjoy being around them, except for the ones I don't. What does faith have to do with it?
"Living according to his standard and allowing yourself to see how he interacts in your life is the action part."
How is that in any way like maintaining a car? If anything it's more like acknowledging that I have a car.
"Why are you so afraid of God that you won't even mention him by name?"
The only ones afraid of God are the ones who think he'll send them to Hell. If someone else doesn't use his name, it's because they think using a different word serves the point better, not because they think invoking your deity's name will bring its wrath down upon them or burn their vocal cords or whatever you think they're afraid of.
"You might want to stop using bad examples of "Christians" who really are not as an excuse to run away from God."
How about a good one, then? One of the most important parts of my deconversion was when I was reading through the Bible in an attempt to reinforce my faith, and instead found the Book of Job.
"You can't get away from him no matter how far you are. Jonah learned that quite well. I hope you do to."
Jonah never left the Mediterranean. I'd hardly call that far. Besides, nowadays we have medications to rid people of disembodied voices that follow them wherever they go.
You do realize you're just as exposed having not gone through security as you are without any security to go through, right? Those wide open concourses are exactly as safe as the security line, just without the groping afterwards.
I feel just as afraid in an unsecured security line as I would in an unsecured plane. What's to keep someone from blowing us up while we're waiting in a tightly packed group to be checked for explosives?
If you have Android, it apparently lets you automatically upload videos and pictures to your Google+ account as they're taken. iOS users just have to hope that someone with an Android is filming their arrest, I guess.
I wasn't aware that speed limits took traffic jams into account. People slow down in traffic jams because they're not as stupid as the monkeys you seem to think they are, not because a change in speed limit is transmitted to them and they feel compelled to slow down.
People drive at the speeds they're comfortable driving at, so your assumption that no speed limit equates to everyone driving at over a hundred miles per hour even if their car isn't designed for that is simply wrong. If cargo or bits of a car start regularly flying off of someone's car at a certain speed, they're not going to keep driving at that speed. If a car is fine at a high speed, there's nothing to worry about when going at that speed, provided good visibility that comes with driving on an open highway in daylight.
I don't know where you got the idea that the existence of bad drivers means everyone on the road is eligible for the Darwin Awards, but your misanthropy shouldn't be a basis for legislation.
So how is ACTA necessary for governing the people? Taxes happen because the government things that people do want need to be paid for. That's not what ACTA's doing.
Actually there are indications that laws against speeding don't do a whole lot. Montana got along just fine without a particular speed limit, for example.
So why do we, as a society, need ACTA? I wasn't aware that society as we know it was on the verge of collapse.
"They can tear your laptop into little pieces if they suspect drugs hidden in it, and you have no real get back."
That I'm not debating. The physical contents of my laptop are valid points of suspicion. The software I have on my laptop is not ever going to contain cocaine, though. They do not need to search my hard drive for drugs, and they certainly don't need to send my laptop somewhere else in order to be sure that it doesn't contain drugs, explosives, or immigrants. Such actions are completely at odds with the idea that they're trying to prevent smuggling of illegal goods, and seem more like they're just trying to use technicalities to try to get around the restrictions that apply to normal law enforcement.
"You may choose NOT to keep your laptop clean, you have choose to bring material with you that is illegal or questionable, you may bring your emails to AQ on your hard drive. That is your choice. It isn't any different from what is in your suitcase."
You really don't see any difference from choosing specifically to bring something, and just forgetting to delete it to appease the unrestricted border guards? YES, I have the ABILITY to delete things from my laptop. I fully intend to spend a week going through it and removing everything the ICE might object to before going to England this summer. That doesn't change that the need to do so is COMPLETELY FUCKING RIDICULOUS. The only reason to bring software across the border on my laptop is because I like having it on my laptop, not to smuggle it into or out of another country. I'm not going to go across the border to pirate Metallica and then come back; if I wanted to pirate Metallica, I could do so here. The idea that software is different on the border than anywhere else is wrong, and there's no justification for searching it beyond the lack of a legal requirement for justification.
Re: Re: Re: Lt. Evers says he didn't arrest him for taking pictures.
The only one that really matters is the first iteration. The guy may have eventually been arrested for resisting arrest, but the arresting was not initiated by his resistance, so it's not useful in determining what the cop took issue with.
Re: Lt. Evers says he didn't arrest him for taking pictures.
Being arrested for resisting arrest seems like circular logic to me. Disorderly conduct and obstruction can be just about anything an authority figure doesn't like. Those sound like explanations, but if they were real explanations they'd provide more than a general sense of badness and explanation-ness.
I think the disconnect here is that most of us just have the one, and don't travel enough to justify getting another on the off chance that a border guard wants to see our porn. It's nice that you're standing by your principles, but as far as I'm aware you're the only one here with such principles.
Even so, the idea that physically smuggling data on your laptop could ever be a problem is ridiculous. If you want something to get to the other side of the border you can put it online and let people on the other side of the border download it, all without ever leaving your home. How could the contents of a person's hard drive ever be an issue in the specific case of a border crossing?
On the post: White House's New Report On Intellectual Property Enforcement Should Get A Copyright As A Creative Work Of Fiction
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opacity
On the post: White House's New Report On Intellectual Property Enforcement Should Get A Copyright As A Creative Work Of Fiction
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opacity
And, again, you're totally wrong about where the color of the sky comes from. It has nothing at all to do with the color of the ocean. Look up Rayleigh scattering.
On the post: How The TSA's Security Theater Harms Us All
Re: Schneier, nice guy but doesn't have a clue
On the post: White House's New Report On Intellectual Property Enforcement Should Get A Copyright As A Creative Work Of Fiction
Re: Re: Re: Re: Opacity
On the post: White House's New Report On Intellectual Property Enforcement Should Get A Copyright As A Creative Work Of Fiction
Re: Re: Re: Re: Opacity
I don't really expect them to change their minds when presented with logic, I just like the fun of arguing without the challenge. I also played through Halo on easy and memorized the money cheat for Zoo Tycoon. Why work for something when it can be handed to you?
On the post: How The TSA's Security Theater Harms Us All
Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Tracking Down Your Food
Re: stalking your chicken...
On the post: White House's New Report On Intellectual Property Enforcement Should Get A Copyright As A Creative Work Of Fiction
Re: Re: Opacity
Yes, given those things, such a conclusion is logical. It's unfortunate that we haven't found a God-created universe yet, but such is life.
"You yourself start from a position of bias that you are unwilling to admit, from a position that automatically accepts that the biblical God does not exist. That invalidates any claim of impartiality you may have, as well as any accusations of partiality you make toward others."
Not every atheist was raised atheist, you know. Some of us spent a good portion of our lives trying to twist our brains into the same pretzel our parents had twisted theirs into. I, myself, independently reinvented deism at the age of twelve in an attempt to justify a belief in God. My current atheism is in spite of a bias towards God, not because of a bias against him.
"To be truly objective, one must allow for all possibilities, both natural and supernatural."
One must also be willing to accurately evaluate the probabilities of differing explanations based on other knowledge. For example, if I were to say that grass appears green because the sky is green and the grass is just reflecting it, then someone dismissing my claim because they know the sky to be blue is performing an objective analysis. If I respond to that person by claiming that if the sky weren't green the grass would have nothing to reflect, I'm just being an idiot.
"You have faith that the people you interact with here and elsewhere online are, for the most part, who they say they are."
No, I don't. I know that they say they are who they say they are. I don't give a rat's ass who they really are, because that's not who I'm talking to.
"You have faith that your body will continue to work."
No, I don't, and as soon as I can afford to and the parts are on the market I fully intend to replace all my organs with more reliable manmade alternatives. Until then I'm grateful for every day my piece-of-shit heart hasn't given out.
"You have faith that your computer will work every time you turn it on."
No, I don't. I learned how to fix computers so I wouldn't need faith.
"You have faith that cities will still be where they have always been."
No, I don't, which is why I don't like seeing our government antagonizing China or Russia.
"You have faith that you can find what you're looking for at the store."
I have plenty of prior experience that leads me to believe that an open store has things to buy, but if I'm looking for a specific thing I try not to predict its presence before confirming it. After all, I have plenty of experience with stores not having a particular item.
"You have faith that the people you know in real life are really like what you see of them."
I'm not even sure what that means. I know that they make good conversation and I enjoy being around them, except for the ones I don't. What does faith have to do with it?
"Living according to his standard and allowing yourself to see how he interacts in your life is the action part."
How is that in any way like maintaining a car? If anything it's more like acknowledging that I have a car.
"Why are you so afraid of God that you won't even mention him by name?"
The only ones afraid of God are the ones who think he'll send them to Hell. If someone else doesn't use his name, it's because they think using a different word serves the point better, not because they think invoking your deity's name will bring its wrath down upon them or burn their vocal cords or whatever you think they're afraid of.
"You might want to stop using bad examples of "Christians" who really are not as an excuse to run away from God."
How about a good one, then? One of the most important parts of my deconversion was when I was reading through the Bible in an attempt to reinforce my faith, and instead found the Book of Job.
"You can't get away from him no matter how far you are. Jonah learned that quite well. I hope you do to."
Jonah never left the Mediterranean. I'd hardly call that far. Besides, nowadays we have medications to rid people of disembodied voices that follow them wherever they go.
On the post: How The TSA's Security Theater Harms Us All
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How The TSA's Security Theater Harms Us All
Re: It has never been about keeping people safe.
On the post: Yet Another Story Of A Guy Arrested For Filming Police
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If ACTA Is So Great, Where Are All The Supporters Extolling Its Virtues?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Quantum Schrodinger
People drive at the speeds they're comfortable driving at, so your assumption that no speed limit equates to everyone driving at over a hundred miles per hour even if their car isn't designed for that is simply wrong. If cargo or bits of a car start regularly flying off of someone's car at a certain speed, they're not going to keep driving at that speed. If a car is fine at a high speed, there's nothing to worry about when going at that speed, provided good visibility that comes with driving on an open highway in daylight.
I don't know where you got the idea that the existence of bad drivers means everyone on the road is eligible for the Darwin Awards, but your misanthropy shouldn't be a basis for legislation.
On the post: Yet Another Story Of A Guy Arrested For Filming Police
Re:
On the post: Universal Music Claims Piracy Justifies Monopoly, Wants The Power To Control Digital Music Services
Re: Re: All companies wish to be monopolies.
On the post: If ACTA Is So Great, Where Are All The Supporters Extolling Its Virtues?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If ACTA Is So Great, Where Are All The Supporters Extolling Its Virtues?
Re:
So why do we, as a society, need ACTA? I wasn't aware that society as we know it was on the verge of collapse.
On the post: Court Suggests Politically Motivated Border Searches May Be Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That I'm not debating. The physical contents of my laptop are valid points of suspicion. The software I have on my laptop is not ever going to contain cocaine, though. They do not need to search my hard drive for drugs, and they certainly don't need to send my laptop somewhere else in order to be sure that it doesn't contain drugs, explosives, or immigrants. Such actions are completely at odds with the idea that they're trying to prevent smuggling of illegal goods, and seem more like they're just trying to use technicalities to try to get around the restrictions that apply to normal law enforcement.
"You may choose NOT to keep your laptop clean, you have choose to bring material with you that is illegal or questionable, you may bring your emails to AQ on your hard drive. That is your choice. It isn't any different from what is in your suitcase."
You really don't see any difference from choosing specifically to bring something, and just forgetting to delete it to appease the unrestricted border guards? YES, I have the ABILITY to delete things from my laptop. I fully intend to spend a week going through it and removing everything the ICE might object to before going to England this summer. That doesn't change that the need to do so is COMPLETELY FUCKING RIDICULOUS. The only reason to bring software across the border on my laptop is because I like having it on my laptop, not to smuggle it into or out of another country. I'm not going to go across the border to pirate Metallica and then come back; if I wanted to pirate Metallica, I could do so here. The idea that software is different on the border than anywhere else is wrong, and there's no justification for searching it beyond the lack of a legal requirement for justification.
On the post: Yet Another Story Of A Guy Arrested For Filming Police
Re: Re: Re: Lt. Evers says he didn't arrest him for taking pictures.
On the post: Yet Another Story Of A Guy Arrested For Filming Police
Re: Lt. Evers says he didn't arrest him for taking pictures.
On the post: Court Suggests Politically Motivated Border Searches May Be Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re:
Even so, the idea that physically smuggling data on your laptop could ever be a problem is ridiculous. If you want something to get to the other side of the border you can put it online and let people on the other side of the border download it, all without ever leaving your home. How could the contents of a person's hard drive ever be an issue in the specific case of a border crossing?
Next >>