the government's desire to collect databases full of US persons' info has only steadily increased since September 11, 2001.
When you refuse to honestly and accurately name the enemy - then the result is that everyone is ragarded an as enemy - and this is the nonsense that ensues.
At this point if May stays in charge I bet the UK fails to reach an agreement on the brexit terms with the EU by the time their 2 year deadline runs out.
This will happen anyway.If is completely impossible for the negotiations to be complete in the 2 years. Two years is way too short a time to undo 43 years (actually it is onger than that because some institutions that the UK joined before joining the EU , like Euratom, are now integrated withthe EU and May, in an act of gross stupidity wants to leave them too).
However the result will not be a hard separation - rather it will be continued partial membership, keeping everything apart from the UK's influence on policy via the parliament, the commission and the council of ministers.
Though, it may help localise activity and convince some companies to concentrate on business actions outside the US.
You assume that the EU/UK won't be stupid enough to do something similar.
This is actually the way that the terrorist win. There is a level of security theatre that risks collapsing western economies to the point where weaker actors can actually take over - scary!
Firstly, if free speech means anything then expression of, or criticism of, ideas should never be prevented just because someone might be offended. There is no right not to be offended. Speech that contains direct calls for violence against any person or group is another matter, but I think it is best to draw the line rather tightly around it.
That certain members of the alt-right movement have been no-platformed is not in doubt (and I disagree with it, for the record) but they are able to speak freely elsewhere so no, "conservative" views are not being censored, those people are free to speak their minds elsewhere.
Actually there is a problem with this line - and it arises because you simply cannot lump together views on a whole load of topics and call it "left" or "right" anymore.
If someone generally belongs to one camp - but has opinions on some issues that fit more naturally in the other - then there may be nowhere for them to speak. The world is much more complex now than it was 50 years ago and the simple left/right dichotomy doesn't work anymore. Hence alt-right is different from neocon, different from teaparty and different again from traditional establishment right. In fact it looks to me like alt-right consists largely of defectors from the left.
In the UK for example UKIP drew some of its support from traditional Labour voters although its core was eurosceptic tory. Having said that, Nigel Farage's drus policy was somewhere in the far left space...
106 were killed by far right violent extremists in 62 separate incidents, and 119 were victims of radical Islamist violent extremists in 23 separate incidents.
Since (contrary to conventional left of centre thinking) Islamists are in fact part of the far right - in fact SO far right that even the traditional far right regards them as too far right it is pretty clear that the far right is in fact responsible for pretty much all of it.
The first chapters of Genesis were not written with the purpose of explaining science - or even history. As you note they were obviously inconsistent from the start.
Unfortunately more recent religious leaders have used them in a foolish attempt to enhance their own authority - and complained when this was undermined by obvious scientific fact. The earth cannot be 6000 years old* because we can all look at the Andromeda galaxy 2 Million light years away.
*Unless of course it is actually the work of Slartibartfast.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Flintstones, meet the Flintstones...
Scientists have faith in the facts known, until more facts come along to change their minds. Sometimes that takes a while, which points out the 'faithiness' of some scientists, as you suggest.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Max Planck
"Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against scepticism and against dogmatism, against disbelief and against superstition, and the rallying cry in this crusade has always been, and always will be: "On to God!""
Re: Re: Re: Re: (Leftist Marxist) Response to: Anonymous Coward Jun 26th, 2017 @ 10:12am
we've seen that the very people protesting most vociferously for free speech and civil rights, and exploiting those freedoms to bring about change, will then turn to suppress those same freedoms once their side is in power.
Actually my point was not that the idealists turn into totalitarians (although I admit that that also does happen) but rather that in the chaos that follows when protests are successful the strongest, best organised groups will seize power and often they turn out to be the worst groups. Many of the original idealists then find themselves marginalised or even persecuted. In countries with large muslim populations the winners tend to be islamist groups. Elsewhere, and in the past, there may be other equally unpleasant beneficiaries (eg the Bolsheviks and Fascists between the wars) or the situation in the Ukraine - where both sides seem to be largely captive of their worst elements.
“That each institution shall strive to remain neutral, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day, and may not take action, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day in such a way as to require students or faculty to publicly express a given view of social policy.”
All of which is fine until the matter of public policy actually affects the university directly. (Eg funding, research related policies etc etc)
Re: Re: (Leftist Marxist) Response to: Anonymous Coward Jun 26th, 2017 @ 10:12am
The current craze of "intersectionalism", seeks to combine several 'underprivileged minorities' under one movement, which is why feminists today refuse to criticise Islam, despite its practice being about as anti-femininst as imaginable, since those two groups have joined forces as allies, along with racial and sexual minorities.
I suggest you try asking the liberal/left parties who allied with Islamists in Iran to overthrow the Shah back in the 70's how it worked out for them.
You could also try asking those who went out onto the streets to overthrow Mubarak in Egypt how it worked out for them - within 2 years they were back on the streets to get rid of the elected Morsi and install military ruler El-Sisi.
Same thing in Libya and Syria - oppose Gaddafi and Assad ... get ISIS.
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend - better the devil you know.
Because they are so arrogant that they only listen to people who tell them what they want to hear.
Someone should point out to these people that this is exactly the same kind of stupidity that led to the Grenfell Fire disaster. The experts and the public warned those in power that the cladding/insulation/lack of sprinklers/incorrect evacuation procedures/lack of adequate staircases to allow escape aded up to a disaster waiting to happen but they ignored it - right up to the point when it did.
What I want our intelligence agencies to be able to do, is to look at that first part of the key, and be able to figure out the shape of the second part of the key,
The WHOLE point of modern (two key) encryption techniques is that you can't do that. The moment you can do that the encryption is broken or at best reduced to the security level of single key encryption. Worse still that key is either a master key or part of a huge database of keys.
Neither of these is likely to be easy to defend against the bad guys.
That or we just get the second part of the key by hacking into the terrorist's phone.
Which again boils down to the existence of a "master key" or a large database.
All that's happening here is a push to compromise personal security in the name of national security. A hole is hole, no matter how it's pitched in secret spy meetings.
Actually
All that's happening here is a push to compromise national security in the name of national security. A hole is hole, no matter how it's pitched in secret spy meetings.
Re: Re: Re: When you make Gollom's long-lost brother look sane...
That makes perfect sense - if you're a rapid right wing ideologue that doesn't know anything about anything.
Actually he is right - and it is you who knows nothing about islam - apart from the plausible lies that are so often told to defend it.
It is a source of great sadness to me that so many on the left of politicis have been hoodwinked by these lies.
Read the article you linked to more carefully and you will find that you are conflating blaws against blasphemous speech with laws against physical disruption and damage to places of worship.
Christianity is just a couple centuries ahead of them when it comes to death penalties for blasphemy.
A huge misreading of history here.
Christianity itself has never imposed death penalties for blasphemy. What has actually happened is that Christianity, after 300 or so years of peaceful persuasion, was adopted by the Roman state. That state was in the habit of using religion as a means of control.
When the state first wanted to kill someone for blasphemy the Church opposed it and both ordinary Christians and church authorities have taken that line ever since. The reality is that the ending of cruel punishments for such "crimes" is a triumph of Christianity.
In addition - where the Chrsitian tradition has been removed by secularists (as in Soviet Russia) cruel punishments for "blasphemy" against atheist belief systems have been imposed.
On the post: DHS Goes Biometric, Says Travelers Can Opt Out Of Face Scans By Not Traveling
Name the enemy
the government's desire to collect databases full of US persons' info has only steadily increased since September 11, 2001.
When you refuse to honestly and accurately name the enemy - then the result is that everyone is ragarded an as enemy - and this is the nonsense that ensues.
On the post: EU's Brexit Strategy Shows How Aggressive Transparency Can Be Used To Gain The Upper Hand In Negotiations
Re: Re:
At this point if May stays in charge I bet the UK fails to reach an agreement on the brexit terms with the EU by the time their 2 year deadline runs out.
This will happen anyway.If is completely impossible for the negotiations to be complete in the 2 years. Two years is way too short a time to undo 43 years (actually it is onger than that because some institutions that the UK joined before joining the EU , like Euratom, are now integrated withthe EU and May, in an act of gross stupidity wants to leave them too).
However the result will not be a hard separation - rather it will be continued partial membership, keeping everything apart from the UK's influence on policy via the parliament, the commission and the council of ministers.
On the post: Germany Officially Gives Up On Free Speech: Will Fine Internet Companies That Don't Delete 'Bad' Speech
Re: Re: So much fear mongering, so little thought
a broadly-worded law meant to punish platforms instead of people. No - it is a law designed to make platforms punish people.
Most platforms don't really care - they only want to make money and they will submit to anything provided it allows them to carry on doing it.
Look at the concessions that facebook has made to Pakistan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoq1JAuzRfM
On the post: Germany Officially Gives Up On Free Speech: Will Fine Internet Companies That Don't Delete 'Bad' Speech
Re: Re: Blasphemy Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoq1JAuzRfM
On the post: DHS To Expand Foreign Laptop Ban If Overseas Airlines Won't Make Their Security More Theatrical
Re: Re: Re:
Though, it may help localise activity and convince some companies to concentrate on business actions outside the US.
You assume that the EU/UK won't be stupid enough to do something similar.
This is actually the way that the terrorist win. There is a level of security theatre that risks collapsing western economies to the point where weaker actors can actually take over - scary!
On the post: Wisconsin Speech Bill Tries To Keep Universities Neutral On Public Policy Debates, Which Is Batshit Crazypants
Re: Re: Neutral Forums are not a problem
Firstly, if free speech means anything then expression of, or criticism of, ideas should never be prevented just because someone might be offended. There is no right not to be offended. Speech that contains direct calls for violence against any person or group is another matter, but I think it is best to draw the line rather tightly around it.
That certain members of the alt-right movement have been no-platformed is not in doubt (and I disagree with it, for the record) but they are able to speak freely elsewhere so no, "conservative" views are not being censored, those people are free to speak their minds elsewhere.
Actually there is a problem with this line - and it arises because you simply cannot lump together views on a whole load of topics and call it "left" or "right" anymore.
If someone generally belongs to one camp - but has opinions on some issues that fit more naturally in the other - then there may be nowhere for them to speak. The world is much more complex now than it was 50 years ago and the simple left/right dichotomy doesn't work anymore. Hence alt-right is different from neocon, different from teaparty and different again from traditional establishment right. In fact it looks to me like alt-right consists largely of defectors from the left.
In the UK for example UKIP drew some of its support from traditional Labour voters although its core was eurosceptic tory. Having said that, Nigel Farage's drus policy was somewhere in the far left space...
On the post: Wisconsin Speech Bill Tries To Keep Universities Neutral On Public Policy Debates, Which Is Batshit Crazypants
Re: Re: Re: Re: Flintstones, meet the Flintstones...
On the post: Wisconsin Speech Bill Tries To Keep Universities Neutral On Public Policy Debates, Which Is Batshit Crazypants
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
106 were killed by far right violent extremists in 62 separate incidents, and 119 were victims of radical Islamist violent extremists in 23 separate incidents.
Since (contrary to conventional left of centre thinking) Islamists are in fact part of the far right - in fact SO far right that even the traditional far right regards them as too far right it is pretty clear that the far right is in fact responsible for pretty much all of it.
On the post: Wisconsin Speech Bill Tries To Keep Universities Neutral On Public Policy Debates, Which Is Batshit Crazypants
Re: Re: Flintstones, meet the Flintstones...
Unfortunately more recent religious leaders have used them in a foolish attempt to enhance their own authority - and complained when this was undermined by obvious scientific fact. The earth cannot be 6000 years old* because we can all look at the Andromeda galaxy 2 Million light years away.
*Unless of course it is actually the work of Slartibartfast.
On the post: Wisconsin Speech Bill Tries To Keep Universities Neutral On Public Policy Debates, Which Is Batshit Crazypants
Re: Re: Re: Re: Flintstones, meet the Flintstones...
Scientists have faith in the facts known, until more facts come along to change their minds. Sometimes that takes a while, which points out the 'faithiness' of some scientists, as you suggest.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Max Planck
"Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against scepticism and against dogmatism, against disbelief and against superstition, and the rallying cry in this crusade has always been, and always will be: "On to God!""
Also Max Planck
On the post: Wisconsin Speech Bill Tries To Keep Universities Neutral On Public Policy Debates, Which Is Batshit Crazypants
Re: Thanks guys....
It's one of those unhappy circumstances in which everyone on every side appears to be wrong.
When you write that you are making commenting on the article into a bit of a minefield.....
On the post: Wisconsin Speech Bill Tries To Keep Universities Neutral On Public Policy Debates, Which Is Batshit Crazypants
Re: Re: Re: Re: (Leftist Marxist) Response to: Anonymous Coward Jun 26th, 2017 @ 10:12am
we've seen that the very people protesting most vociferously for free speech and civil rights, and exploiting those freedoms to bring about change, will then turn to suppress those same freedoms once their side is in power.
Actually my point was not that the idealists turn into totalitarians (although I admit that that also does happen) but rather that in the chaos that follows when protests are successful the strongest, best organised groups will seize power and often they turn out to be the worst groups. Many of the original idealists then find themselves marginalised or even persecuted. In countries with large muslim populations the winners tend to be islamist groups. Elsewhere, and in the past, there may be other equally unpleasant beneficiaries (eg the Bolsheviks and Fascists between the wars) or the situation in the Ukraine - where both sides seem to be largely captive of their worst elements.
On the post: Wisconsin Speech Bill Tries To Keep Universities Neutral On Public Policy Debates, Which Is Batshit Crazypants
OK but
“That each institution shall strive to remain neutral, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day, and may not take action, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day in such a way as to require students or faculty to publicly express a given view of social policy.”
All of which is fine until the matter of public policy actually affects the university directly. (Eg funding, research related policies etc etc)
On the post: Wisconsin Speech Bill Tries To Keep Universities Neutral On Public Policy Debates, Which Is Batshit Crazypants
Re: Re: (Leftist Marxist) Response to: Anonymous Coward Jun 26th, 2017 @ 10:12am
The current craze of "intersectionalism", seeks to combine several 'underprivileged minorities' under one movement, which is why feminists today refuse to criticise Islam, despite its practice being about as anti-femininst as imaginable, since those two groups have joined forces as allies, along with racial and sexual minorities.
I suggest you try asking the liberal/left parties who allied with Islamists in Iran to overthrow the Shah back in the 70's how it worked out for them.
You could also try asking those who went out onto the streets to overthrow Mubarak in Egypt how it worked out for them - within 2 years they were back on the streets to get rid of the elected Morsi and install military ruler El-Sisi.
Same thing in Libya and Syria - oppose Gaddafi and Assad ... get ISIS.
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend - better the devil you know.
All those feminists and minorities should beware of allying with Islam - it will end in tears. https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2017/06/221252/science-slavery-isis-enslavement-yezidi-women -islam/ http://www.businessinsider.com/istanbul-bans-gay-pride-march-for-second-year-in-a-row-citing -safety-concerns-2017-6?IR=T
And btw guess who just banned teaching evolution in Schools - its our old friend (Gollum's brother) Erdogan. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/23/turkey-will-stop-teaching-evolution-schools-educ ation-ministry/
On the post: Australia To Push For Encryption Backdoors At Next 'Five Eyes' Meeting
Re: Re: - Grenfell fire
Because they are so arrogant that they only listen to people who tell them what they want to hear.
Someone should point out to these people that this is exactly the same kind of stupidity that led to the Grenfell Fire disaster. The experts and the public warned those in power that the cladding/insulation/lack of sprinklers/incorrect evacuation procedures/lack of adequate staircases to allow escape aded up to a disaster waiting to happen but they ignored it - right up to the point when it did.
On the post: Australia To Push For Encryption Backdoors At Next 'Five Eyes' Meeting
Re: Alright, pretend I'm George Brandis:
What I want our intelligence agencies to be able to do, is to look at that first part of the key, and be able to figure out the shape of the second part of the key,
The WHOLE point of modern (two key) encryption techniques is that you can't do that. The moment you can do that the encryption is broken or at best reduced to the security level of single key encryption. Worse still that key is either a master key or part of a huge database of keys.
Neither of these is likely to be easy to defend against the bad guys.
That or we just get the second part of the key by hacking into the terrorist's phone.
Which again boils down to the existence of a "master key" or a large database.
On the post: Australia To Push For Encryption Backdoors At Next 'Five Eyes' Meeting
National or personal?
All that's happening here is a push to compromise personal security in the name of national security. A hole is hole, no matter how it's pitched in secret spy meetings.
Actually
All that's happening here is a push to compromise national security in the name of national security. A hole is hole, no matter how it's pitched in secret spy meetings.
FTFY
On the post: Pakistan Sentences First Person To Death Over Social Media Posts
Re: Re: Re: When you make Gollom's long-lost brother look sane...
That makes perfect sense - if you're a rapid right wing ideologue that doesn't know anything about anything. Actually he is right - and it is you who knows nothing about islam - apart from the plausible lies that are so often told to defend it. It is a source of great sadness to me that so many on the left of politicis have been hoodwinked by these lies.
On the post: Pakistan Sentences First Person To Death Over Social Media Posts
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Pakistan Sentences First Person To Death Over Social Media Posts
Re: Re:
Christianity is just a couple centuries ahead of them when it comes to death penalties for blasphemy. A huge misreading of history here. Christianity itself has never imposed death penalties for blasphemy. What has actually happened is that Christianity, after 300 or so years of peaceful persuasion, was adopted by the Roman state. That state was in the habit of using religion as a means of control. When the state first wanted to kill someone for blasphemy the Church opposed it and both ordinary Christians and church authorities have taken that line ever since. The reality is that the ending of cruel punishments for such "crimes" is a triumph of Christianity. In addition - where the Chrsitian tradition has been removed by secularists (as in Soviet Russia) cruel punishments for "blasphemy" against atheist belief systems have been imposed.
Next >>