Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Only YEC denies it (Score 1) 605

by Mr. Slippery (#48261853) Attached to: Pope Francis Declares Evolution and Big Bang Theory Are Right

The Big Bang states that the Universe gave birth to itself, and by implication gave birth to any gods or other form of Deity that may be around today.

No, it doesn't. You might want to read up on the origins of the Big Bang theory, and the Catholic guy who invented it. It's entirely possible to believe that a being outside the space-time continuum created our universe with a bang -- or laid an egg which hatched, or farted or sneezed out the Cosmos.

I don't accept any of these theories, mind, but there's nothing directly contradictory about believing in a creator outside the continuum created in the Big Bang; indeed that's what some multiverse theories (e.g., black hole cosmology) amount to, though of course they're not speaking of a conscious creator.

Comment: Re:Haleluja ... (Score 1) 605

by Mr. Slippery (#48261711) Attached to: Pope Francis Declares Evolution and Big Bang Theory Are Right

But physicalism is indeed far to limited a model for observable reality.

Howso? You speak of "intelligence" and "consciousness", but the behavior I see of humans and other animals is quite adequately explained by a physicalist, neurological explanation. Sensory transducers tickle certain nerves, via the network of the nervous system other nerves fire in a chain and eventually make muscles move (or gland secrete or whatever). That these muscle movements in a human being sometime hit keyboard keys to spell out "I am a conscious being!", or cause complex vocalizations, is fundamentally no more mysterious than any other observable behavior of an organism with a brain.

Does this objective account explain my own subjective internal experience of life? The question is meaningless -- no set of observations of the external, objective universe have bearing on my internal, subjective experience. And if other beings have internal, subjective experiences, they are by definition not part of the external, objective, observable universe, and it's a fallacy to seek explanations of the unobservable in the observable. Indeed it seems a fallacy to seek explanations (in the causal sense) of the unobservable at all...

Comment: Re:NSA Indexing (Score 1) 143

by Mr. Slippery (#48254207) Attached to: OneDrive Delivers Unlimited Cloud Storage To Office 365 Subscribers

I'm completely harmless. I'm a married middle class worker who pays his taxes and has no interest in harming anyone.

Same could be said of most of the Japanese-Americans whom the federal government put in concentration camps during WWII.

Innocence and harmlessness are no protection when governments go bad.

Comment: Re:Why would I use it? (Score 1) 627

by Mr. Slippery (#48252595) Attached to: Why CurrentC Will Beat Out Apple Pay

Why would I use it?

Because merchants are probably going to start charging you a fee to use your credit card. They may hide it by jacking up prices then offer a "CurrentC discount" or something (sort of like the so-called "cash discount" at the gas station), since it's still tricky to charge a CC fee, but merchants are getting reamed and are trying hard to find a way to stop it. Where do you think that cash back on your Visa card comes from?

Comment: Re:What are you talking about Willis? (Score 1) 231

by Mr. Slippery (#48247477) Attached to: Ex-CBS Reporter Claims Government Agency Bugged Her Computer

It's a prison where horrible things had to happen to prevent ever more horrible things from happening.

It's a prison where people did horrible things and tried to excuse them by saying they had to, in order to prevent ever more horrible things from happening, but in reality prompted yet more horrible things. See political martyr, and please stop believing that you put out a fire by pouring more fuel on it, or stop horrors by committing more horrors.

Comment: Re: Snowden (Score 1) 221

by Mr. Slippery (#48237951) Attached to: When Snowden Speaks, Future Lawyers (and Judges) Listen

All I said was that China and Russia call him a patriot and asked if you could be a patriot for more than one country.

A patriot is someone who loves their country. Snowden is a patriot who loves the United States. If some folks in Russia and China correctly identified this fact, good for them. (Note that loving the United States has nothing to do with loving its government: as Thoreau said, "A very few- as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men- serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it.")

Comment: Re:and they use cash businesses as examples (Score 5, Informative) 421

by Mr. Slippery (#48234455) Attached to: Law Lets IRS Seize Accounts On Suspicion, No Crime Required

What happened to be "innocent until proven guilty"?

It went out of fashion in the 1990s. Because War On (some) Drugs.

Seriously, people, this civil forfeiture bullshit has been going on since the late 20th century. It's legal roots go back to the 1600s, but it was the U.S. in the 1990s where it started to get egregious.

Are y'all just learning about it? Start with the wik for a decent overview.

Comment: Re:Oooh ... formally promised ... (Score 2) 167

by Mr. Slippery (#48216199) Attached to: Ello Formally Promises To Remain Ad-Free, Raises $5.5M

So, this is a voluntary thing, doesn't involve any certification, has no actual enforcement, and only exist in about half the US states or slightly less.

You're confusing certification with the status of a benefit corporation. Certification has no legal enforcement power other than revoking certification; OTOH, under the model legislation it just takes 2% of stockholders to initiate a benefit enforcement proceeding against a benefit corporation and have court enforce the public benefit provisions of its charter. (Your state may vary -- it looks like in NJ any stockholder can bring such action.)

So long as it exists in the state where Ello is incorporated (which is apparently does), it doesn't matter that not all states yet have benefit corporation legislation.

Yes, benefit corporations are new. If I was going to bet my life on questions of how courts will treat them I might be wary. But as a general matter they seem like they could be a useful way to reign in privacy violations by tech companies by providing a legally enforceable guarantee of behavior.

Comment: men more likely to be harassed and threatened on-l (Score 2) 570

by Mr. Slippery (#48212345) Attached to: The Inevitable Death of the Internet Troll
Sayth the fine summary:

In a Pew Research Center survey of 2,849 Internet users, one out of every four women between 18 years old and 24 years old reports having been stalked or sexually harassed online.

But if one actually follows the link, one reads that "Overall, men are somewhat more likely than women to experience at least one of the elements of online harassment, 44% vs. 37%. In terms of specific experiences, men are more likely than women to encounter name-calling, embarrassment, and physical threats." [emphasis added]

That blows are rather large hole in the thesis which the poster and many others seem to be implying, that internet harassment is primarily rooted in misogyny.

This is not to in any way justify the harassment of women. But if you want to know why there's a backlash, part of the cause (not a justification, a cause) may be the ongoing distortion of the facts about violence and harassment.

Comment: Re: Semantics (Score 5, Insightful) 570

by Mr. Slippery (#48211999) Attached to: The Inevitable Death of the Internet Troll

Because what the world truly needs is you telling women how they are and are not allowed to dress.

GP poster did not say anything about restricting how women are allowed to dress. He spoke about looking at women.

How about this: women (and men) get to wear whatever they like. And men (and women) are allowed to look at each other (in public, not talking about peeping toms here) as much as they like. It's your body, you get to put what you want on it. They're my eyeballs, I get to point them whatever direction I want. Autonomy and agency for all, hurrah.

If you think that the way a random woman is dressing in public means she wants to have sex with you, you're an idiot. If you think the way a random man is pointing his eyeballs in public means he wants to rape you, you're an idiot.

From Sharp minds come... pointed heads. -- Bryan Sparrowhawk