Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Gun nuts (Score 1) 1374

by another_twilight (#46895601) Attached to: "Smart" Gun Seller Gets the Wrong Kind of Online Attention

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms

That seems to be the gist of it

for self-defense

... and that's one (perhaps even the most common) interpretation. Argument about the intent seems lively.


there are people in the US who fear the things so much, they want to restrict who can and cannot have a firearm


There are only a very few obvious prohibitions, namely against convicted felons

is an interesting juxtaposition - at least to an outside observer (caveat, I'm not from the US). They did their time, served their sentence, why should they be denied a right granted them in the Constitution? If you can justify why one group should be denied such a right, then it simply becomes a game of 'norming' where the line between the haves and have-nots gets drawn. Either it's a right or it's not. Either it applies to all or you end up negotiating who does and does not get that right.

There is a route by which this can be accomplished, but it would require amending the US Constitution,

Or working around it, such as the restrictions that apply to felons.

Comment: Re:Did this really happen? (Score 1) 109

by another_twilight (#46752241) Attached to: Inside the Stolen Smartphone Black Market In London

So the BBC showed that a call center worker would record the cc numbers of callers if they were paid (and were told it was for the BBC?). How is that not a problem? What's to stop me, for example, calling that worker and paying for some cc numbers - even if I have to claim i work for the BBC?

Comment: Re:Don't forget Ananias (Score 2) 537

And Zeus lives in Olympus, Odin in Valhalla (when he's not wandering amongst us), Horus is in the sky (at least we can see His presence) and Russell's teapot is in orbit. We have as much evidence for each of these as we do for Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus etc. Why do you believe in the version of God you do? Is it just a matter of needing to believe in something and that Christianity is 'good enough'?

You are correct, I cannot disprove the existence of your god. Or of Lugh, Coyote or Quetzalcoatl. You do believe in them, too, right?

Comment: Re:Hysteria! (Score 1) 274

by another_twilight (#45032417) Attached to: Asian Giant Hornets Kill 42 People In China, Injure Over 1,500

And you believe your *inset nation* will handle things any differently ...?

Australia. Poisonous insect, you say? That'll make a change from the poisonous spiders, reptiles and monotremes. Oh, and jellyfish. And octopus. And toads (although they are an import and more dangerous to pets than humans) ...

Comment: Re:God says... (Score 1, Interesting) 157

by another_twilight (#44569635) Attached to: MIT Research: Encryption Less Secure Than We Thought

Which god? Zeus? Odin? Quetzacoatl? Given the differences between some people's definitions of what 'god' is, I am unconvinced of the 'all aspects of the one divinity' argument, so before we start playing 'what if' let's establish what you mean when you say 'God' and why we should accord that definition primacy over another.

The thought exercise you pose is little different to any one of the form that posits a state of being where your senses are fooled so that you cannot perceive the true reality - brain-in-a-jar, plugged-into-the-Matrix, figment-of-a-dreaming-god. The answer is the same in all cases - if the environment I perceive is consistent, if the illusion is complete, then the difference that makes no difference is no difference. The 'glitches in the Matrix', the 'glimpses of the divine' are less likely to be cracks in the slightly-less-than-perfect-illusion and more likely a figment of our imperfect perception and/or cognition.

If we are figments of a gods imagination, then it is either indifferent or malicious. The mental gymnastics required to claim that a beinn who keeps us in ignorance whilst imbuing us with reason and curiosity is benign are ridiculous.

Comment: Re:Ubermensch (Score 1) 3

by another_twilight (#44183649) Attached to: 130701 (La Jolla, CA, 92037, war v7.034)

Ah, yes. your current obsession. Accusing and imagining the people around you engaged in perverse sex acts. You attribute to others behaviour that lets you dehumanise them and feel superior to them. Given that, socially speaking, you are about as close to zero as it is possible to be, the 'crimes' that you must invent for _you_ to feel superior need to be heinous. It's telling that most of what you project is sexual in nature.

I mean, no accusations of cannibalism? That's a classic, historical crime with which to paint your enemies prior to whipping yourself into a frenzy of moral outrage. There's the odd half-hearted claim that 'they'/'we' worship false gods - I guess devil-worship has just fallen out of style these days.

Several times a week, sometimes every day you have another rage-filled rant filled with lascivious details about the perversions of the people you see. So while neither of us engages in sex with animals, one of us spends most of his day thinking about it. Writing about it. Describing, out loud, what he thinks is happening when two people walk past. Oh, I know, it's not your fault. I mean, you wouldn't have all those thoughts or get so hot and flustered if there weren't so many dogs being paraded past you, to tease and haunt you - right?

Comment: Re:Hmm... (Score 1) 101

by another_twilight (#43145239) Attached to: The Manti Te'o of Physics

You can't have a meaningful dialogue with someone who is lying.

It's not money you are spending, it's your time. This is the classic Gambler's Fallacy with, I dare say, a touch of the "I'm not going to find anything/anyone else". Without knowing more I'm going to take a punt and suggest it's not her you like or care for but an idealisation that you have built. Perhaps a 'potential her' or 'she as she might be'. While you are pouring your life into this you are missing opportunities that might actually bear fruit.

If you are talking about it, that's fantastic. Keep at it. Talk to people you can trust. Part of you is concerned. Nurture that part.

In any event, may I suggest you take a break. Find another escort and see her regularly enough to get over the 'strange and new'. See if and how that changes your perspective and how your current companion reacts.

Comment: Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score 1) 202

by another_twilight (#42343413) Attached to: Google Brings the Dead Sea Scrolls To the Digital Age
Thanks for your reasoned and informative reply.

I've read the bible. Several versions (raised Christian). I've read parts of the Quran - not the whole thing. I've a nodding familiarity with most of the major faiths, a fair chunk of various sects and 'heresies' and various philosophies.
I've seen suggestions that god is the system. That god is the universe. That god is the indefinable 'something' that arises out of the complexity of sufficiently advanced systems. It's not new. It's not particularly radical. It may be new to you and if so I wish you well exploring the idea and the implications. The quest for knowledge is more important than the answers you find, IMHO, just don't get too attached - the Dao you can see is not the true Dao, don't you know.

I am not asking for citations expressing these ideas or sentiments. I am asking, specifically, for something to back up the claim that 'Science' has identified something akin to a hive mind and that this is god.

To your implication - you can skim religions looking for common elements. You'll find rules of communal behaviour, standards of ethics and morality and the like and from them you can try to extract a kind of unified meta religion. What you end up with says more about the basic necessities of humans living with each other in groups larger than tribe or small village than about any underlying universal truth.

You can also try and find the minimal definition for 'god' that doesn't contradict any of the big monotheisms which isn't too hard as they have all influenced each other and/or absorbed traits of the others. But even that fairly broad sketch has to be made very vague before you get to the point where you can say that a modern version of the 'universal unconscious' is the 'god' that the major religions describe.

Want to get a buzz contemplating your part in a system that may already be exhibiting signs of order at a level beyond the one at which you are personally aware? Go for it. Try to claim that 'science' has 'identified god' and I'm going to suggest that your need for 'proof' to bolster your own lack of faith is manifesting as aggression when questioned or challenged.

Or maybe you're just an Internet Tough Guy. Who knows?

Comment: Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score 4, Informative) 202

by another_twilight (#42333033) Attached to: Google Brings the Dead Sea Scrolls To the Digital Age

completely incorrect



These words do not mean what you think they mean.

I love systems that give rise to emergent behaviour at sufficient levels of complexity. I have no problem seeing the interactions of people as giving rise (having already started to give rise?) to something like this. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by a 'spirit of consciousness', but it's the most ... generous interpretation I can come up with.

In any event calling that 'god' is ignoring the very different definition of that word that most people have and comes across as dishonest. I would be interested in a citation or link to what you are claiming as 'fact'.

Comment: Re:But that's not the real problem. (Score 1) 1651

by another_twilight (#41532663) Attached to: To Encourage Biking, Lose the Helmets

cycling has seen a dramatic per capita decline since the introduction of MHL

This is an interesting examination of the data that I presume you are referencing -

Briefly, total cycling is up but it looks like per capita trip length is down. The assumption is that it is most likely MHL and lack of infrastructure. However, once you account for the aging of the population, that drop disappears and the impact of MHL goes with it.

Comment: odd (Score 1) 7

by another_twilight (#40911467) Attached to: damn_registrars steps in it again...
From your sig listing puppets ...

raiigunner and red4men look like they were designed to troll and both of whom I came across posting in HiLJ's journal some years back. IIRC they both got into some fairly heated discussions with HiLJ back when he was more coherent.

I doubt there's anything to it, but it's odd to see those names again in this environment.

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 1) 4

by another_twilight (#40785401) Attached to: 120725 (pov)
Sounds like you are maintaining a 'list of hate'. You talked about it back in April. I think the specific post has been deleted or redacted - I guess that makes it easier to shift position when you feel you need to and makes it easier to re-interpret the past so that it supports your current version of events.

I thought I made it quite clear that I am plotting for your death.

Do you realise the irony of this statement in light of your claims of stalking? This constitutes more of a 'credible threat' than anything anyone has posted, here, to you.

Just to be clear, I don't think this is a credible threat, it's just closer to one than what you have been able to point to.

Are you not dead yet? Go die. Now

Oh I will. Statistically I've got anywhere from 30 - 50 years (given country, gender, current age, family history etc.). Given that the average age of death of male homeless in the US is early 40s, I'm backing me to outlive you. And yes, I know you 'make fast' and think you could pass for a man in his 20s.

I am plotting for your death.

Is this anything like you looking for work 6-7 years ago - where you wouldn't change your resume to meet current standards, or meet some of the people that various folks on this forum organised for you? Is it anything like you waiting until "suitable interest is generated and representation is made available" with respect to your stalking and your hope(?)/expectation(?) that 'someone' would do something about it? Or is your 'plotting' more like you waiting for god to 'gift' you with a home, a partner, a life ...?

'Cos, you know, your success rate, so far in terms of plot-to-fruition is about zero.

Look, I'll give you a hand - I'm in Australia (as I have mentioned and as you may gather from my spelling). Last news report I saw that mentioned prices suggested that hiring someone to perform a 'hit' was of the order of $5-10k. You could scrounge that up in about 5 years of begging (assuming about $20 per week). Maybe a bit more for the flight over. Hell, you could cut that right down by doing the 'work' yourself. You let me know when you're in Oz and I'll drop you my address.

If you're talking something more ... nebulous, I quit believing in your god some years ago. On the off chance that he/she/it does exist, send them 'round. There's some shit I want to 'talk' to them about.

We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"