Pardon me. In those particular instances,, I was wrong. Those are not firmware. BUT... and here is the main thing... that is completely irrelevant to the discussion that was taking place.

There are 2 points that are relevant here:

First, you took my comment out of context, and then called it dumb. Well, guess what? Lots of things are dumb when taken out of context. The context was: GP said "back doors" in cell phone conversations (that is the context) are in hardware (GP's comment). I said no, it isn't. If you want to argue about something else, you're going to have to argue with yourself.

The second point, related to the first, is: you didn't make any specific arguments against what I said, instead you just called it dumb. That's called an "ad-hominem", and in any kind of logical debate not only does it carry no weight, it can get you kicked out.

It might have been appropriate to ask me how I knew the back doors (if any) are not in hardware. But you didn't do that.

I have news for you: you aren't always the smartest person in the room. But more to the point: even if you are the smartest person in the room, there might be somebody there who knows something you don't.

So be careful about calling people stupid, lest you end up looking stupid.

I would have explained to you how I knew that back doors in cell phones aren't in hardware, if you had only asked politely. But since you didn't, I'm not going to bother.

That's not "a fine and wavering line", at all. That's firmware, a third category.

That's moving the goalposts. It's a different subject from the one under discussion.

Since it is in the general field in which I make my living, I think I had the general qualifications to reply to GP.

The point here, which you seem to have missed, is: properly written software can make hardware (or even firmware) "back doors" irrelevant, unless your hardware has a complete second voice channel connected to the microphone that it's sending its data through. And I think it's pretty damned obvious that cell phone carriers aren't assigning 2 separate voice channels in realtime to U.S. cell phones.

Look up RedPhone. Go ahead, look it up.

Your own comment proves that it's software, not hardware. If it was correctable via a software update, then it isn't the hardware's fault.

Most likely the "service" has very little if anything to do with the security, since in order to be secure, it HAS TO be encrypted on the phone prior to sending.

It is the software that needs to be evaluated, not the service. If the software on the phone doesn't allow a back door, then "the service" has no way to access the content, and it is secure. Otherwise it is not. There are few if any plausible alternative situations.

I'm not the one who needs education here. I knew what you meant by Megyn Kelly (or however her name is spelled). The fact that I've only seen her once or twice does not mean I do not know who she is. I asked what she had to do with this. You tried to pass it off as my ignorance, but in fact what you were trying to do was imply that I made this whole argument because I am a conservative. You are wrong.

That's just laughable. Of course it is. And you can see that it is, in the very sentence you wrote: "... social action against someone".

I repeat: coercion and bullying are not just violence. They are threats of negative consequences. "social action against someone" is a negative consequence. Therefore social action against someone -- over the way they vote -- is an attempt to coerce people (not necessarily him, but perhaps others) into not voting that way.

Come on, use that logic you claim you possess. "Social action against someone" because of how they voted is a threat against someone because of how they voted. And it is also an implied threat against others that they should not vote that way.

This isn't frigging rocket science, man. It's simple if-then.

No, bullying is intimidation and coercion, which are threats of negative consequences. Those negative consequences do not have to be violence.

If you said to an employee, "Give me sexual favors or I won't pay you", that is sexual harassment, which is one form of bullying. But there is no violence involved.

You can justify this kind of nonsense to yourself all you want, but at the end of the day what you are doing, in simple terms, is rationalizing the action of coercing people to vote a certain way. That is an un-American activity. Period. End of story.

Have a nice day.

was then modded down. What a hilarious proof of my point. These folks can pretend it's about the science all they want, but what it's really about for them is stifling dissent.

Since we know what's happening to weather, we have a pretty good idea.

Speak for yourself. I don't know any such thing, and I've seen A LOT of data that say it isn't so.

My "denialist microquibble" was about why a politician who was asking perfectly legitimate questions about things that are in fact questionable, is being labeled stupid for doing so. Calling people stupid for asking questions is not the way science works.

That's the most hilarious comment you've made yet. And you call ME "denialist". Wow. I must remember to inquire about what brand of blinders you're using, because they seem to be good ones.

The video clip being discussed was about AGW, and it was the cause of people saying here that politicians are stupid. Claiming otherwise won't get you anywhere.

I didn't "make it" about anything. The videoclip was about AGW, and OP's post was (largely) about the video clip. And the video clip, in turn, was largely about the survey. You're trying to move the goalposts here.

But aside from that, you're still wrong. The computer models are supposed to be based on the science, not the other way around.

It is based on old-school physics that have been discredited. Fourier's conclusions about his friend's experiments turned out to be wrong... the experimental apparatus in fact formed a real greenhouse. But... greenhouse gas theory is not based based on a the kind of heating that occurs in real greenhouses, which is known to be the prevention of convective cooling. Greenhouse gas theory is completely different, having to do with trapping of radiation. Which has been thoroughly discredited. (Just one example of said discrediting.)

Don't try to debate me on the science, guy. I've got you beat. I can keep shooting you down all day.

I didn't write violence, I wrote coercion. Violence can be used as a form of coercion, but there are other forms too. They are not quite the same things.

Bullying is a form of coercion, too, but not all bullying is violent. Just for example.

That isn't even close to what I wrote. Trying to put words in other peoples' mouths is not logic.

And I saw Megyn Kelly once, on YouTube. I don't remember what it was about. What does she have to do with anything?

Yep. That's why you fail.

We KNOW that the survey that reported a 97% consensus was, in fact, bogus.

75 or so cherry-picked responses out of a 10,000-person survey is not anything a responsible statistician would call valid.

And the "expert" doesn't even try to defend it. He does a fine job of moving the goalposts, but he doesn't support the actual claim at all. Because, of course, he knows it's bogus.

We also know, from the science, that there is no significant evidence that "climate change" has been increasing either the number or severity of extreme weather events. And so on.

The real question here is why a politician is actually asking perfectly legitimate questions, but is being labeled stupid on Slashdot for doing so.

This is the domain of ideologues, not science.