Emphasised that for you. Why would you accuse him of a "sense of entitlement" or demand any other explanation for his thoughts? Do you think that every item that is being sold, is sold at a fair price? If you have ever seen the price of an item and thought "that's more expensive that it should be" (which, if I understand correctly, is one of the basis of capitalism, "vote with your wallet" and the like), you should ask your question to yourself first.

I don't think he was trying to defend the bible:

/me laughs

You'll probably not like it. TCP over Hard Disks has a very high latency!

Cuban here (though I'm no longer in Cuba).

Be aware that Yoani is not real. Yes, the person exists, but her "opinions" are all paid for (or at least seeking a reward). She does not represent the views or the reality of the Cubans. She is not interested in giving Cubans access to information, she - just like the Cuban government - is at most interested in giving them access to propaganda. It is very hard to get access to information, because everyone wants to pick and chose what to give you. If you read her blog, you will probably notice this... almost poetic posts full of half truths in which any "good" thing is left unsaid.

This is one of the examples. It is true that sneakernet is a major way of exchanging data. It is even encouraged. One time, a government official, in a sickening display of ignorance, stated something along the lines of "everyone can access the internet, they just have to go to a library, ask what they want to know, and the librarian will download the webpage to a floppy". I used to carry not only usb drives, sometimes even up to 3 hard disks, in my pockets. Bringing a hard disk to a university, looking for an IT person and getting him to open one of the computers to insert the hard disk and copy everything they had was a regular occurrence. I was one of those IT persons... my desktop computer was permanently open, until we got an external enclosure just for that purpose. I tried once to set up a couple of "sneakernet stations" so people could come in, explore the ftp servers and download everything they wanted. You don't need encryption, unless what you are transporting is really illegal (a foreign news article is not illegal, child porn is) and you are high profile enough that the police may want to go through the effort of checking your data (unlikely, most don't even know what "data" is).

That said, encryption is illegal[1]. So one could argue that using encryption is more risky than not using it: a news article critical of the government is not illegal, the same news article encrypted is. This is moot, however... it is very unlikely that your data will be checked either way. I carried some data encrypted, mostly password lists or ssh private keys - it would have been highly irresponsible to carry my employer's data in plaintext. Of course, if you are carrying around your accounting book detailing how the CIA is paying you... you probably want to encrypt that, or even better, don't carry it around.

Regarding the export controls: probably the only area in which they are completely ineffective is in software and data. No one in Cuba cares about that. Copyright is ignored to the point that movies and TV shows shown in national television were torrented + "sneakerneted" to the TV station[2]. Same happens with software (to the despair of f/oss advocates). This is the main content of the underground networks: software, music, music videos, movies and tv shows. My hard disks used to contain a mirror of Debian and Ubuntu... and a copy of 1984 and Animal Farm that I was reading at the time, downloaded from the university's ftp server.

(I'm not defending the illegality of encryption, or the export controls, or that the police and the prosecution have too much power and that they can use their ignorance against you... Nor am I saying that it is ok because some of it is also a problem in the US. I am also not defending censorship. I'm just pointing out how deceitful Yoani is, and using the post to explain that the reasons encryption is not wildly used have nothing to do with the US export ban.)

[1] In very silly ways. For instance, to renew the "networking license" for the university, I had to state that no encryption was used, even though using https and ssh instead of telnet was mandatory to get that license. I know, I once stated "Yes, we use encryption, e.g: ssh, https,..." and the license was denied until I submitted the same form without that sentence.

[2] Funny anecdote, when The Fellowship of the Ring first arrived at the university network about 2 weeks after the release, I added a tiny mark during the opening credits, just to check how far it would spread... When it was shown on TV, I looked for that mark... and there it was.

No, those are not stupid. What is stupid is to spend time on them, get the people excited, and actually argue about it. Specially homosexual rights (I'm not USAian, so I don't even know what immigration reform is all about). I have yet to see an argument against homosexual rights,yet it is argued, when there is no data to support the opossing position. (No, "I don't wanna" is not an argument. An argument is "this is how this group of people will be harm by they having the same rights as I have", preferably with a study supporting that the harm is real). I'm sure there are plenty of topics that are not or cannot be scientifically settled - those are the ones they should spend their times on.

FYI, ice is less dense than water. That's why it floats.

An even better analogy: you left confidential info *about me* clearly visible and readable in your car. I had trusted you to keep it secure and I had not noticed that you were failing to do that. He saw it, and let me know in the only way he could.

I really can't understand all those "hacking victim" apologists (note the quotes). Currently it is illegal for me to accidentally discover that my bank/phone company/isp is leaking my information or allowing transactions in my name. Without that knowledge, I can't even "vote with my wallet" and choose a more secure venue. Yet the "hacking victim" apologists only focus on how wrong the "hacker" was, instead of that his actions were the only way to learn about the "victim"'s gross negligence.

Obviously your post is already receiving comments from apologists, "he had to poke", "he copied the information" (both of which are obvious, specially the copying, which is automatic, and required if you want to give warning). Those replies - people speaking against their own interests in defence of a negligent mega-corporation - sadden me.

There is one, very important, difference: asking google to retrieve information is much more efficient than requesting a secretary to do so. That's pretty much the point of asking google. There are people in this forum who will claim that the difference is essential. I find that position nonsensical, but by ignoring it, you leave open a point of attack. So I would make your conclusion more explicit:

The "report" in both cases should be considered free speech, regardless of how efficient were the means used to obtain it.

(I would also go beyond free speech here and include those actions that are considered correct or legal to do by yourself but become illegal if you ask someone else for assistance, free or not. But extending on this idea would probably be offtopic)

Re-read his post. He didn't say that the existence of a God was disproved. He said that Christianity was. Christianity makes some very specific statements about their god, some of which are nonsensical (like torturing itself to death so it could forgive "us" for a grievance committed by our supposed ancestors, which we inherit only because he made it so in the first place), some are contradictory (like being benevolent and ... well, all his cruelty in the bible). Regardless of the (in)ability to rule out the concept of a "general" creator, specific statements of christianity can be disproved.

What? As the GP told you, "Evolution", regardless of how you chose to capitalize it, says nothing about the origin of life. It explains the origin of *species*, not *life*, i.e, the observation that the biosphere today is wildly different than the biosphere several million years ago, giving an explanation of how it happens that is accurate enough to make predictions based on them ("if we do this, we should see speciacion... oh, look, speciacion!"). There is no "origin of life evolution". There is "abiogenesis", but claiming that abiogenesis is science stepping into religion demonstrates a severe lack of knowledge of what "science" and "abiogenesis" are (hint: the evidence for abiogenesis is more than "this self-contradictory book says so". The Miller-Urey experiment was a confirmation of a prediction based on the primordial soup theory -- that's science at its finest).

Crap. And you are unable to infer from my position from the rest of the posts that that is precisely what I was saying all along. Come on, honestly, cant you figure out that given the context, "if I assume that all my memories are wrong" doesn't mean anything more than "extremely unreliable"? Otherwise the statement wouldn't make any sense.

Holy shit. You are really good at this [trolling thing]. No, your question asked for proof. That's seeking proof, not truth nor utility. Just proof. Even assuming that you asked for truth (I'll grant you that if you want), your question was malformed, and so was your answer: you can't prove anything through faith. I stated that before. I merely answer the next question that comes to mind, which is how to behave, and that is a question of utility, not truth. My bad for giving a useful answer.

Really, my bad. I think there is only one way of dealing with you. Reboot. Ask the question again with a precise definitions of all your terms, and I shall answer that and only that, so that you don't get "confused" (clearly on purpose) about what we are talking about. At this point, I have no idea of what you are asking. Proceed under that assumption.

*sigh*. I don't know how to classify this. You just changed the argument right there. We know that memory is unreliable! (If we assume that it is, of course it is. If you assume that it isn't absolutely unreliable, once you get to neuroscience, you conclude that it is unreliable, eliminating contradictions even). I stated this already. So I guess I don't have "faith" in my memory being reliable because, well, I don't claim that it is.

Moving the goalposts much? Your original question wasn't about truth.

No, these were my exact words: "Why do you place a higher certainty on your perception than on your memory? Why would you make a distinction?" And now I have to ask why questioning your perception is irrelevant but questioning your memory isn't.

No, I'm not building a strawman. Before embarking on the reply, as a non-english speaker, I did a "define:faith" in google, just to be sure of the meaning. First meaning I got: "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something". If that's not the same, I apologize. But that's irrelevant. You are extending the definition of "faith" to cover each of the contradictory hypotheses that I assumed. Did I have "faith" in that memory is completely unreliable when I made that assumption, and then changed my "faith" when I assumed the contrary? If you answer "yes": well, great, I had "faith" then, but only after you twisted the meaning beyond recognition.

Let me get this straight. Assuming that something is true in order to advance an argument requires "faith" in that something?. Ok. Twisted meaning of faith. I also have faith in the axioms of euclidean geometry, and sometimes I even have faith in the axioms of non-euclidean geometries, because I assume them to be true when I do geometry.

"in the way I may want"? No, it means that if I assume that memory is absolutely unreliable, I'm not even able to think, because by the time I finish a thought, the previous one is already in the past, i.e, a memory. Even the assumption that memories are wrong are just a memory by the time that you start thinking about the consequences. "I'm assuming that all my memories are wrong. Given that... oh, wait, I remember that all my memories are wrong. Including this one. So I'll assume that all my memories are wrong. What I was doing? Oh, yes, trying to get to any conclusion under the assumption that all my memories are wrong. But that is a memory. So it is wrong. Why is it wrong? Ah, because I assumed that memory is wrong. Gah, I just remembered that. Invalid. Why?...".

Recalling that when? While I'm doing my reasoning? Well, yes, I recall "I'm assuming that my memory is reliable". But that's just my assumption, so there is no contradiction there. To think about the consequences of the assumption that memory is reliable I must assume that memory is reliable. Duh. To think derive any arithmetic result, I must assume the axioms. There is no circular thinking there. I'm not concluding my assumptions in either case.

That's ridiculous. Do you spend your whole life asking you this question (every time you access one of your memories), having the discussion in your mind, and concluding that you have faith? I doubt it, you wouldn't be able to do anything else. You just don't ask the question with every recall. Me neither. When for some reason I ask the question, I get my answer (or non-answer) and that's it. Just like I don't ask "am I really seeing this, or is this just an illusion?" every time light enters my eyes.

What does it matter if is arbitrary or not to whether I said if is true or not? I didn't say is a measure of truth. Even if I was arbitrary, I still didn't say that is a measure of truth. Why change the question?

Nope. I said that the question was irrelevant because the answers lead to any observable difference. You replied that given enough time, all questions are irrelevant under my definition ("Given enough time, whatever humans do, I don't think the universe will be observably different."). Well, construct any scenario, in any time scale, in which there is an observable difference. If there is no scenario in which there is a difference, then the question is irrelevant. I just made things easier for you.

The figment of my imagination that claims to be a memory. The little devil whispering in my ear, "I am a memory". Whatever you want to define memory. Your question never was whether memory exists or not, it was whether you can trust it or not. Your question pre-supposes that there is something that we call memory /and/ that we can access it. If you are now changing the question, then... I'm not playing any more. Be honest.

Thus perceiving it as sufficiently accurate.

I don't know, what do you tell him? And what does that question has to do with this discussion? You seem to be confusing a question with indistinguishable answers, with an insufficiently specified question. The first ones are useless. For the second ones, you just have to specify them better.

Right... I think that's called "nit picking". You asked, but the answer that the question itself is flawed made you keep demanding an answer, that has to match yours. Right.

I've been through this many times now. No more. If you claim that assumption is 100% synonymous with faith, go ahead.

Oh, please, tell me where I used the No True Scotsman, or how I even spoke of "True Faith", whatever that is. It is you who is twisting the meaning of words at this point. The only way you make sense is if you claim that assumption and faith absolute synonymous.

I was giving you the benefit of doubt /because/ I liked some of your other posts (in other threads). In this one, you've been trolling.

If assumption == faith, then I'll let you say that I have... "faith in my assumptions", whatever that means. If assumption != faith, then what you just said is nonsensical. Up to you. In my native language, and I believe than in english as well, faith and assumption are wildly different. The key different is that I analysed *both* assumptions. But if you want to say that they are the same just to "win" an argument in slashdot, be my guest.

(Ignoring this, because the only interpretation that I see is you saying I have dementia, so I'll assume the meaning was lost in translation)

Close your mind? Not at all. It is you who claims that making an assumption is equivalent to having faith. Ok. But I disagree.

And some inconsistencies aren't forgotten. But what does that has to do with "prove to me that your memory is reliable, i.e. show me how I can rely on my memory other than through faith."? You could have argued, "consider when we find FTL. Acknowledging faith is, as noted above, simply a necessity".

I'm afraid that you are the one twisting the definition ("assumption == faith").

And you are also the one who thinks "faith" = "religion". For that, I have proof: you posted this in this thread. Unless you admit that you were just trolling the thread by posting an offtopic and inflamatory message.

Oh, please, don't be condescending. That's ridiculous. Either respond honestly, or don't do it at all.

I believe you. 28 Slashdot posts so far today. It doesn't seem that you are even trying to concentrate.

That was not my question. I asked why do you place higher certainty on your perception than your memory, not which one is more useful.

No, it isn't, unless you stretch the word "faith" to mean that. An assumption is just that, an assumption. "Faith" is an unquestionable belief, an assumption isn't. If I assume that my senses and memory are worth anything, I arrive to a set of conclusions. If I assume the contrary, I arrive to another set of conclusions. It just happens that one of those sets of conclusions is empty. You are free to linger on that set. I'm not claiming the truthfulness of either assumption. I'm just claiming that I considered one assumption, got the empty set, and now I'm considering the other assumption, which I haven't finished exploring.

When did I say it was?

I didn't say "given enough time". I didn't say the set of results "X time into the future, for some value of X". I also didn't say that it was a sufficient condition for usefulness, merely a necessary condition. But you are right, after the extinction of the human race, the question of whether I am blowing my nose right now, will be unanswerable and pointless, even though it is not pointless now. Feel free to construct an scenario in which the competing answers to your question lead to observably different results.

Let me simplify this for you. I "observe" (for some definition of "observe") my memory (whatever that is), and perceive it to be (sufficiently) accurate. Even if my memory is not accurate and my perception of it is just an illusion, I still perceive it to be (sufficiently) accurate. That is what makes your question unanswerable, and that is precisely what makes it meaningless.

Sure, you can ask anything you want. But if it doesn't have an answer, it is not worth answering... because, you know, doesn't have an answer. Your position, instead, is that you have to ask it, give it an arbitrary answer ("memory is reliable"), and claim that answering it is an act of "faith". Well, I refuse to answer the question with any answer besides "it doesn't have an answer, so it is not worth lying to myself".

Whining? Really? You, sir, are a troll. I was giving you the benefit of doubt, given a few other posts in other threads, but now I have little doubt. So, an argument that disagrees with you is "whining". And I thought that insulting people to further your point was beneath you.

Ok, well, you did that. You asked the question. You found out it was unanswerable. You know *why* it is unanswerable (because the answer that you give it in your head has no influence in what you perceive). A reasonable person would say "next question?". The next question could be related, like "what are the implications of not knowing the answer?", or "how do I behave, given that I don't know the answer?". But you linger on the first question, answering as a matter of faith (??!), seemingly unable to accept the answer "I cannot do that, and here is why" and move on.

Good for you!

Ahh, but you know this. You don't need to be taken out of your body for that. If your mind is not accurate, then it is being tricked constantly. If your mind is accurate, then you can start reasoning on top of that assumption, and once that reasoning leads you to trust science, and in particular the parts of science dealing with memory, you'll conclude that even your mind is being occasionally tricked. Centuries ago, you could claim not to know. Today, not so much.

A lot of alzheimer patients, and schizophrenics, and those countless humans afflicted by mind issues, would like to know the answer too (at least while it is not too late). But I doubt that starting with an answer "I trust my memory because of faith" will get you any closer to that.

Ok, you lost me. An Alzheimer's patient is the perfect example of one who may assume that his memory works even when it clearly doesn't. That is a precise example of why you can't trust your memory "by faith": your faith may very well be misplaced. It also illustrates the uselessness of the question. I don't think that all this training will help you a lot if you get Alzheimer. Probably most alzheimer's patients ask themselves similar questions after diagnosis.

That's nonsense. You are trying to find a physical process that allows you to disconnect your mind from your brain (or your thoughts from your mind?), by thinking about an unanswerable question in your own head and answering it by faith. I suspect you are not going to find it that way.

To be honest, even if I just called it nonsense, this single line was what I found most interesting of the whole thread. If you really think that a faith based answer to your unanswerable question is the first step towards finding this physical process, I would love to read your reasoning. I'll probably still think that is nonsense, but you may just prove me wrong, and frankly, it would be much more interesting than the rest of the discussion, not to mention that it could actually show (at this level, there is no "proof") your point.