You do not understand the meaning of this phrase. It makes no reference to the existence of technological barriers, of any kind, to the breach of privacy. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy for a sealed envelope, even though it is trivial to read the contents of that envelope.

How is talking about "the internet" here even relevant? There is a huge difference in the privacy and security of data transfers made through different web services alone, let alone all extant networking protocols.

Under current US law, obtaining unauthorized access to privately served files is clearly criminal. Nude photographs are of note solely due to their sexual content.

Can you explain why you think it is incorrect or illogical to describe crimes pertaining to sex or sexual content as "sex crimes?"

This made me wonder if the AC was full of it or not. But, yes, it's true. Systemd embeds a webserver and a QR encoder.

Despite the fact that the there is a "risk of enabling the service by mistake (which, given that journal-gatewayd will happily serve private log data to the whole internet AFAICS, is has a pretty bad impact in this particular case)," (emphasis mine) the thread is quickly derailed to a series of unrelated discussions ignoring the issue raised by the user in the first message.

I guess this is a microcosm of what is pissing people off about systemd and its development...

Not sure if you meant to reply to my post. But I agree that it's extremely hypocritical for self-described "Christians" to participate in war, venerate wealth and power, etc.

Science doesn't have 'high priests,' although it does have, shall we say, respected 'elder statesmen.' The difference is that a high priest can determine or interpret dogmas, which are selected statements said to be beyond justification or verification, and which can thus in turn be used as a basis for the justification of other statements. In contrast, science abandons verificationism completely. Instead, science relies on falsification of statements, with no statements accepted dogmatically.

In practice, scientists frequently take certain statements as temporary dogmas, in order to generate from them further statements which can be put to empirical tests. If these statements are falsified, the 'dogmas' are themselves discarded, again in contrast to religion.

Definitely possible, but it's also quite possible that some kind of accidental physiological defect is at work instead. Something like the probable effect of environmental lead on crime rates in the developed world, not that lead levels probably ever affected the course of human evolution.

And this actually pretty funny, sorry for being patronizing.

That's hyperbole. Cutting someone off in traffic is possibly a selfish act, depending on the larger situation, but it doesn't make a narcissist or a sociopath. We live in the least violent, most socially integrated period in the history of our species, and both conditions are probably more rare than ever before.

If they stop, it would only be out of fear of that "power." To recognize that what they are about to do is wrong, and choose not to do it, requires an internal experience of empathy or an again internal rational process which concludes the total costs of the act are greater than the total benefits.

The problem with religious justifications of ethics is that they are just that: post-facto rationalizations for previously committed acts. In reality, people perform acts based on their internal emotional experience in the relevant moment. They experience, unbidden, feelings of "good" or "bad" which influence the immediate decision making process. Whether or not the capacity for these feelings was instilled by evolution or by a god is not strictly relevant here.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson does not "believe" in science like Pat Robertson "believes" in Christianity. Tyson considers statements to highly corroborated if there is empirical evidence in their favor (combined with a lack of falsifying evidence), while Pat Robertson believes dogmatically in certain select statements regardless of any relevant evidence.

Thus, while Robertson believes that these dogmatically accepted statements can be legitimately used to justify or verify additional subsequent statements, Tyson believes that statements can never be verified. Rather, he considers that statements can be falsified, and describes those which resist falsification as corroborated.

Of course, everyone (including Tyson, Robertson and me) don't generally write or speak in such an unwieldy manner unless ambiguity is to be avoided at all costs.

And what of the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Bahai and Jainist organizations which try to do good by a "Christian definition of good?" Why do so many Catholic organizations try to do good by a "Protestant" definition of good?

Your clearly using a highly restricted definition of "Christian good" which you've designed specifically to overlap with these other groups. We can ignore that, because in any event the answer is pretty simple. Almost everyone has a highly similar definition of good, because the definition in fact arises from human nature. Many religious thinkers have taken great care to stress that ethics arise from humanity as it is, regardless of whether or not they think it evolved that way because altruism conveys a selective advantage or rather was instilled with altruism by God (because God happened to prefer it).