What I observe with the majority of people: they are fully capable of being free-thinking individuals, but the main way they use this capability is to follow the crowd.

With herd animals that are prey creatures (i.e. cattle, sheep) this makes sense in terms of survival. There is safety in numbers. Stray from the herd, and you get targeted by ever-present predators.

With humans, who are at the top of the food chain and generally have no natural predators, it's just a form of cowardice. I'm not sure the DNA of fruit flies is going to provide a satisfying explanation here, at least not one that can be extrapolated to include people, fascinating though it may be.

In my honest opinion, there is something very, very wrong with you.

Your habit of misrepresenting comments taken out of context is very likely to get you nailed to a very rough wall one of these days, if you keep it up. It's not as though I haven't warned you. And I'm not even saying I would be the one to do it. If you do this to other people too, it would probably not be reasonable to expect them to be as tolerant as I have.

Again you try to put words in my mouth. That's a fundamentally dishonest thing to do.

I commented about Revkin's own comment. No more. There was no argument AT ALL, there was no "stumping". You're fabricating.

You just get more hilarious by the year.

I repeat: you might want to examine your own conscience. Because you never know when you might be called on to defend it.

I, on the other hand, am an open book. I have been consistently amused that you have never learned to read it.

As a general principle, I don't lie. I make jokes now and then, and that sort of thing, but I am probable far LESS of a liar than about 99 out of 100 people you'll meet.

I have no problem at all with conscience. But I strongly suggest you start examining yours. Because at some point you may have to defend it.

Why should I "admit" anything? I don't owe you anything.

However, if this is the claim you make, then I am happy that you are reinforcing my case that you have been abusively "cyberstalking" me for years. You claim to be following even my deleted tweets. How interesting.

In fact, I now have two good pieces of evidence in less than 24.

I repeat what I said before, more that once: you aren't as smart as you think you are.

All you have to do to protect yourself is to stop being an asshole. I've told you before. You have refused to listen.

Of course not. But that's not what I was doing, so the rest of your comment is moot.

Abuse of a system that was intended to be used differently in capitalist America is no different from abuse of a system that was intended to be used differently in formerly "communist" Russia, or China. The economic system has no bearing on it whatever: it's still just abuse of the system.

People have abused laws in all socioeconomic systems and they almost invariably do it for their own interests. You don't get to blame something that happens in ALL socioeconomic systems on "capitalism".

You're still trying to put words in my mouth. Won't work.

But then, you've been doing it for years now, and it still isn't working, and you still haven't learned anything.

That makes one of us.

And since when, do you think, patent trolls represent capitalism?

I can think of a pretty good example: TrueCrypt's ability to use Twofish in conjunction with AES. Twofish is pretty good by itself, but maybe not quite up to AES. Even so, there's still AES backing it up. Even if one is cracked, good luck with the other.

One-Time-Pad is 100% pure security-though-obscurity, and nothing beats it if you have leakproof key management. But that last is a "little detail" that can be pretty hard to achieve.

This.

A little extra obscurity (almost) never hurt anybody... as long as it's backed up by real security TOO. It's really "obscurity instead of security" that is the demon to vanquish here.

Logic fail. No surprise.

My statement allowed for at least two logical possibilities. That very definitely was not the one I meant.

Goodbye.

Because, as I clearly stated, I was too busy to bother with it.

He did. But he was not the originator of them.

(A) You about as much a "skeptic" as I am actually female. Nothing dishonest about that.

(B) This is completely irrelevant and completely removed from the context of your original comment.

I repeat: learn how to argue. You fail at it. Until you do, stop harassing me.

It was a bad example, but the principle is not wrong. According to Miranda v Arizona, the USE IN COURT of statements made during questioning without a Miranda warning is unconstitutional.

So yes, I was wrong in a sense. It would not be the police action that is unconstitutional. It would be the use in court of those statements that was unconstitutional.

That still means my basic point was correct: an act can be unconstitutional.