Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Already happened? (Score 1) 159

by Your.Master (#47422685) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI

There's nothing greater than a semantic argument on slashdot.

Arguing whether science is a form of philosophy is like arguing whether the Game of Thrones TV show is an example of art. You don't necessarily have any disagreement about what science is (even though that's what everybody is focussing on); you have a disagreement on the definition of philosophy (which, like art, is notoriously hard to pin down).

Comment: Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here (Score 1) 286

by Your.Master (#47421911) Attached to: Tor Project Sued Over a Revenge Porn Business That Used Its Service

Look unless she took those pics with an actual non internet connected camera, she gave implicit permission to post them by taking them with an internet enabled device.

No she didn't. What a bizarre assertion.

People ARE going to Hack your shizz.

What? As far as I can tell, this wasn't hacked. And even if it was...that's the opposite of permission.

This is today; you don't leave money in an open box on front porch expecting it to remain unmolested. You don't leave your front door unlocked. You don't leave the car keys in the ignition. You don't leave your packages in plain sight at a mall. You don't take pictures of yourself naked for any reason and leave them on an unsecured device and expect it to remain there untouched.

You realize people taking advantage of all the other things you mentioned are crimes that you can pursue in courts and nobody will blame you? In fact, you realize that if somebody steals your car, even when you left the keys in the ignition, or breaks into your house through an unlocked door, and you *don't* follow up on it with the authorities, that's viewed with suspicion?

(For that matter, I don't think my parents even have a front door lock, and I know my dad leaves the keys in the car -- my mom doesn't mostly so that she can click the button to find her car in the parking lot. Not everybody lives in fear -- to be fair, lots of people live in places where the fear is warranted. And I do lock my doors, living in a more heavily populated area. And none of us would leave a package unattended in a mall).

It's not the insistence on retribution that's the problem here. It's the fact that it was directed at the wrong target. Tor didn't have anything to do with this any more than the mall had anything to do with your package, left in plain sight, being stolen. Or a privately-owned highway that they used to drive your car away, after you left the keys in the car.

Comment: Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here (Score 1) 286

by Your.Master (#47421857) Attached to: Tor Project Sued Over a Revenge Porn Business That Used Its Service

He's not saying taking pictures is repugnant. It's republishing them not only without her consent, not only *against* her express wishes, but specifically to humiliate her and make her angry.

Yes, Tor is the wrong target for punishment (though I'm unclear on whether she was seeking punitive damages from Tor, or just suing them to try to get them to help de-anonymize things).

You, however, are actively participating in the problem, by re-posting those links to slashdot. I'm not saying your hands should be chopped off or anything ridiculous, but I am saying that your behaviour is repugnant.

Comment: Re:Probable cause (Score 1) 195

I think people have different notions of what "freedom from religion" means. What you're talking about is not at all the same as what some others I've seen have talked about. The first time I encountered the "separation clause doesn't imply freedom from religion" was somebody arguing that it would not violate the US constitution to require politicians to swear that they believed in a god (without specifying further the attributes of this god), which seems like a crystal-clear violation to me.

Comment: Re:Factual beliefs? (Score 1) 683

by Your.Master (#47395817) Attached to: When Beliefs and Facts Collide

Saying that agnostic has in practice become the true absence of religion (as opposed to atheism which is "supposed to be") is not a sensible statement. It's like saying that sometimes people dye their hair, so in practice blue eyed people are the true brunettes.

One thing that's interesting is that nobody sits around talking about the absence of things. It doesn't make sense to sit in a circle and talk about how there are no robot showbusinessmen on Uranus that are re-enacting Earth's transmissions and rebroadcasting them with Faster-Than-Light technology to their home galaxy. Likewise, atheists don't sit around and talk about how there's no god.

So if you see atheists talking on the Internet, or go to atheist forums, then it's almost by definition that they are talking about religions (usually the dominant religion in their area, which in English-language forums is usually Christianity). And just like most informal groups of people, some of them are total jackasses about it.

Even so, a statement like this seems starkly opposed to reality:

as a group they go out and try to force other to believe as they do.

I've seen an atheist argue that a condition of political office should be atheism, on the basis that admitting that you are influenced by things that aren't real means you are mentally incompetent in the worst way*, and I can see how that is like "forcing" others to believe as they do -- but this is not a common stance, even among the vitriolic internet atheists.

*I also know deeply religious people who got extremely uncomfortable with George Bush's "god talks to me" speech, because they might not agree with the atheist I just mentioned, but they follow his argument as far as thinking that it's really not a good sign if a powerful political leader claims to be hearing the voice of god in his head.

Comment: Re:Gee Catholic judges (Score 1) 1304

by Your.Master (#47358509) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

That's like saying you can't be a Republican without campaigning against gay marriage. It is, after all, a cornerstone of the official Republican platform.

Despite references to papal infallibility and a highly structured organisation, Catholicisim is generally *not* a literalist religion. One of the fundamentals of Catholicism is that you must follow your conscience, even if your conscience is wrong and/or violates Church teachings ("Primacy of Conscience"). In fact it is sin to do something you believe in your conscience is wrong. Even if the Pope himself comes up and tells you with full authority that it is definitely not a sin to take advantage of a free refills policy, if you feel it's wrong, you don't do it. If Sotomayor believes it's wrong for the law to treat fetuses as morally equivalent to adult humans with respect to right to life, from the instant of conception, then it would be wrong of Sotomayor, as a Catholic, to do so.

They struggle with this, of course, because you can stretch "Primacy of Conscience" to mean anything and it's not supposed to be that loose. But the religion isn't one of sharp boundaries and thin lines between black and white and slavish binary rulesets. This is the religion that inspired the concept of Limbo, after all.

(FWIW I am not a Catholic, and it's no fallacy since I am an atheist and have no memory of being anything else)

Comment: Re:Common core changes history (Score 1) 113

by Your.Master (#47342921) Attached to: Is K-12 CS Education the Next Common Core?

How is that relevant? It's not there now, so arguments that Common Core is bad because of their social studies content are incoherent at best and likely dishonest.

If you want to take issue with Common Core social studies, then you have to take issue with that.

I don't know much about Common Core or US education, so I don't know whether Common Core is good or bad, nor whether it is better or worse or a little of both compared to what already exists. But I know that you can't conclude that the US Civil War is being removed from US classes by analyzing a textbook on rhetoric.

The Challenger explosion is often discussed in business classes without analyzing the underlying engineering principles at stake (often disguised so that people won't be biased in their go / no-go decision).

Comment: Re:Sexism and racism (Score 1) 374

by Your.Master (#47337863) Attached to: Google Is Offering Free Coding Lessons To Women and Minorities

That's a fair point, but I do believe there are also programs that target the impoverished, including white people (mostly white people, just because there's more of them in the country).

This just doesn't happen to be that one.

Analogously, lots of people have problems other than a societal bias against them in tech. That's not what this is trying to solve.

Sometimes we don't try to solve all things for all people at the same time with the same solution.

Comment: Re:No, they're replacing. (Score 2) 341

by Your.Master (#47337787) Attached to: If Immigration Reform Is Dead, So Is Raising the H-1B Cap

This is a discussion about H1B workers. They're in the country legally.

if they didn't game the system in the first place then they wouldn't have a sad story to tell

Sadly, this is not always true.

Also I hope you at least feel sorry for somebody who crossed the border as a child (as in, their parents took them).

Comment: Re:So....far more than guns (Score 0) 453

by Your.Master (#47332959) Attached to: CDC: 1 In 10 Adult Deaths In US Caused By Excessive Drinking

Drinking and driving was one of the big causes in here, and it is illegal.

Aside from drunk driving, drinking is more likely to end in killing yourself. I think gun deaths are more likely to kill other people (aside from suicide, which I would personally exclude from gun violence statistics, but I know is a large number). Nobody talks about restricting access to guns for your personal health.

Also, the number of people who drink is much higher than the number who have guns handy, so this statistic doesn't really inform whether the threat of gun violence is or is not more deserving of regulation than the thread of excessive drinking deaths. *Also* guns are useful for intimidation in robberies and the like in a way that booze is not -- the negative effect of guns is not just death but also the imminent and credible threat of death. Of course on the flip side there are social ills associated with alcohol that are not generally deadly.

The comparison to pop is a little more sensible. However, even the "sugary drinks" ban people were talking about was nothing like prohibition -- it essentially banned selling in a large cup, without banning bottomless refills. I still think it wasn't quite right, but you're the only one talking about blanket bans. Or children, for that matter.

I am not making any statement on gun control (not derailing an article about drinking deaths) other than that there isn't a comparison that's both simple and reasonable between gun control and prohibition.

It is surely a great calamity for a human being to have no obsessions. - Robert Bly

Working...