The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Sharing a hyperlink is no different than pointing at a bulletin board in plain view of the public. Neither the bulletin board nor the act of pointing to it should be illegal.

I got four letters for you:J-U-R-Y

I got some letters for you, too: Voir dire. This is the process wherein lawyers weed out all your peers in favor of compliant idiots. That's not what it's supposed to do, of course, but that's how it's used. It's then almost always followed by admonishment by the judge to the effect that the jury has to apply the law as written, with nothing at all about the jury's actual duty to evaluate the law -- in fact, if that's brought up, likely you'll have a mistrial.

If you go to court in the US, you can pretty much look forward to success in ratio with the money you spend on your lawyer, and how well your lawyer manages to pass that largesse along to the judge. And too bad if the judge thinks public opinion means more than your money.

Despite the prior news story about a guy getting off for upskirt photos, this law seems like a solution looking for a problem. Has upskirt photography been such a large problem in Massachusetts that a law was required?

I would have thought basic social pressures and shaming (lets admit - people doing this *are* particularly creepy) would do a better job at limiting the number of offenders, and the rest would do it anyways.

With a law on the books, particularly one with the possibility for felony charges, I wonder how many times we are going to read about misapplication of the law. Do you technically run afoul of the law anytime you take a photo where a woman in a skirt is elevated from your current location, such as a place with an elevated walkway? Do you risk arrest for taking a picture in a location with an escalator or glass-walled elevator like many shopping malls? even if you are close to neither one?

Someone here doesn't keep up with philosophy.

A good deal of philosophy is mythology, trendy mythology, which is why I tend to ignore the signals coming from that direction. It's not even a soft science: it's not science at all. So yes, you're quite right, and thank you for noticing I'm not taking part in that mostly-bewildered sideshow.

There is nothing -- repeat, absolutely nothing -- to indicate, in any way, that there is anything going on in brains that isn't mundane physics. Further, not anywhere in the body, not anywhere in the world, not anywhere in the entire universe. The tendency of certain personality types to attribute the unknown to various imaginary basics without bothering with objective fact, measurable cause and effect, and the inconvenience of presenting a falsifiable proposal is what got us gods, elves, banshees, ghosts, chupacabras, and so forth.

Me, I'll wait to assert that force X is making something happen until someone demonstrates that there is a force X. In the interim, we already know the living brain is replete with electrical, chemical and physical activity (by which I mean the actual physical configuration is known to change over time... I'm not just talking about niceties like oxygen transport.) We don't know what it all does in any kind of holistic sense; that makes it far too early to be presuming the existence of further activity of another order. If, however, we look into all the known activities and find that they cannot account for the end result, that's the time to look further -- that, or if someone builds an X detector and demonstrates that X is, in fact, going on -- as it were. I must point out to you that no such thing has occurred.

In the interim, the way to bet is clearly that it's all mundane, in the sense that we already understand the underlying physics principles. Everything from Occam's Razor to basic statistics tells us the probable solution lies in the set of solutions we've determined describe everything else; for one, we know of nothing else, for another, there's no evidence whatsoever that points to something else. There's simply no path from here to Dualism. Chalmer's assertions are baseless at this point in time, as they were when made. There's simply no evidence for consciousness as "it's own thing"; it exists in the mundane world, odds are that it is of the mundane world -- just like everything else we've ever looked into.

c'mon. Every indication says your brain is you. Chemical reactions, electrical impulses, stored states, massive, active and dynamic connectivity. That's what "you" arise from. When your brain stops, you stop. Your head contains a most effective EM shield consisting of wet, conductive layers that are sufficient to prevent huge RF and EM fields from getting into your brain tissue. The tiny, minuscule events going on inside your head can't get out under any circumstance for the same reason, unless you (a) punch a hole in your skull or (b) scan it with instruments so sensitive you can hardly comprehend the idea, or (c), you effectuate your mind's activity in some manner by moving your body via the nerves that connect your muscles and other parts to the brain through the base of your skull. Your brain is not an interface. Your brain is the computer. Everything we know about physics points this way; nothing points the way you suggest. It's simply not the way to bet. What you're talking about has basis only in mythology at this point in time.

o we don't know what "thinking" is -- at all -- not even vaguely. Or consciousness.

o so we don't know how "hard" these things are

o and we don't know if we'll need new theories

o and we don't know if we'll need new engineering paradigms

o so Alan Winfield is simply hand-waving

o all we actually know is that we've not yet figured it out, or, if someone has, they're not talking about it

o at this point, the truth is that all bets are off and any road may potentially, eventually, lead to AI.

Just as a cautionary tale, recall (or look up) the paper written by Minsky on perceptrons (simple models of neurons and in groups, neural networks.) Regarded as authoritative at the time, his paper put forth the idea that perceptrons had very specific limits, and were pretty much a dead end. He was completely, totally, wrong in his conclusion. This was, essentially, because he failed to consider what they could do when layered. Which is a lot more than he laid out. His work set NN research back quite a bit because it was taken as authoritative, when it was actually short-sighted and misleading.

What we actually know about something is only clear once the dust settles and we --- wait for it --- actually know about it. Right now, we hardly know a thing. So when someone starts pontificating about dates and limits and what "doesn't work" or "does work", just laugh and tell 'em to come back when they've got actual results. This is highly distinct from statements like "I've got an idea I think may have potential", which are interesting and wholly appropriate at this juncture.

So, equality is your basis for eat or don't eat? Excellent. Because not all humans are created equal, either, as is quite evident by your comment. So, barbecue sauce, or a nice sweet glaze for you. Can't decide. Are you muscular, or more on the well padded side?

Real Italian or Greek pizza has always been heart healthy.

Meh. If I want pizza, I want New York style, mozzarella loaded deliciousness. It's not Italian food. It's New York food. And as I said, I'm only pretending it's healthy. I don't actually care: the thing is, it's awesomely delicious. I grew up eating the stuff on 171st street in Manhattan; since then I've had pizza all over the world and I'm sorry, but NYC pizza embodies the absolute peak of pizza-to-palette-pleasure technology.

If I want greek food, frankly, I want a Gyro: lightly fried pita with slow roasted meats, greens, tomato slices, a few Greek olives, a peperoncini, tzatziki sauce, and a glass of fresh lemonade to go with.

When I want Italian food, there's a huge variety I enjoy, but not, repeat not, Italian style pizza. A lovely marinara over pasta? Sure. I'm still trying to find a sauce as marvelous as one I encountered near Port Jervis, New York in the 1970's, at a mall hole-in-the-wall called "Two Brothers." It was a sauce with a lot of finely chopped garlic, some obvious herbs, quite thick with content other than the liquid of the sauce. That was just wonderful stuff. I had a meal in Naples once, a pasta dish, that was graced with a light sauce not at all like our alfredo, just marvelous. Little place on a back street. Probably never run into it again. Sigh. But there's lots of good Italian-American food I enjoy, so all is not lost!

Right, right. For instance, you, as an animal, would probably be excellent with some good barbecue sauce. No need to be concerned about about your opinion of the matter, or your feelings consequent to your demise, or the impact on anything that might depend upon you.

And I have just the place on my wall to mount your severed head once the taxidermist is done with it. I've got this great hat I want to top you off with.

:o)

We never really tried the food pyramid.

That's good, since it was made up by a guy using late 1800's assumptions, Wilbur Olin Atwater. We've moved on a bit; we actually understand a bit about body chemistry and metabolism now. Best thing to do with the original food pyramid is set it on fire and grill some steaks with it. There's a more recent version though that may be a little more trustworthy.

PS -- this is worth spending some time researching for your own benefit (and household, etc.) I just found a couple of representative links that didn't, as far as I could tell at a quick glance, actually promote craziness. Watch out for old info.

Yeah, on 1200 you'd be bedridden in no time.

No. Those numbers are derived from averages. There are metabolisms that operate at both extremes as well. There's a predictable distribution of metabolic rates. Some folks are fine on 1200/day. Also, some people can eat a lot more calories than the average person and not gain any weight; body simply refuses to metabolize more than it needs and out it goes. All this before the variables of exercise, ambient temps, clothing, etc.

Eating only veggies makes no more sense than eating only meats.

Until one considers the animals being eaten. That's a whole 'nuther ball of wax.

Then again, most vegetarians are blissfully unaware of the death toll in every field of vegetables at harvest time. Only look in the tracks of the harvesting machinery if you have a strong stomach. And seriously, to everyone: wash your veggies well with non-toxics before you cook them.

Crust, tomato sauce and cheese. And mushrooms. And, believe it or not, sauerkraut. Local place had that on the menu, tried it as a joke, joke was on me. Delicious. My lady, who is much more of a meat eater than I am, has it as canadian bacon rounds with sauerkraut. But me, I like the meat free version better anyway.

Pizza -- for as long as this fad lasts, I can pretend it's the perfect food. Yay!

That sounds familiar, and of course makes great sense WRT the name. And it makes even less sense that this foodstuff would be "made of people" when the name is cobbled out of (soy)a and (lent)ils.

Thanks.