The Refuge of the Toads

[Guest_0048cc29]

What do Michael Shermer and RooshV have in common?
And in what ways do they differ?

blog.simplejustice.us/2016/02/19/hate-is-not-an-excuse-for-rooshv-false-rape-claim/

Scott Greenfield's explanation of the Stephanie Gari grenade / RooshV false rape claim shows how this grenade is similar and different to Myers grenade but also how RooshV's response is dramatically different from Shermer's. Make of it that you will.

[Guest_84d94f98]

No. the "too" was to emphasize the relationship between "friend" and "librarian" for the joke fail "disgusting" bit.

Librarian you say?

https://veuwer.com/i/3nkd.jpg

-Soylent f98

[Keating]

My initial reaction was 'Awesome, Apple!' But then I began to think through the implications and it all gets a bit murkier. Sam Harris's analogies weren't exactly spot on as gas been pointed out above, but he does raise the essential point of whether us all having a digital place the courts can't go is a good thing.

Good thing or not, I think lamenting the fact is pointless. Rather like worrying that 3D printers mean that everyone has the ability to print plastic guns, or that the internet universalised pornography. Sure, it's not fantastic, but the advantages of technology usually outweigh the benefits. All technologies have side effects.

As I said on the previous page, the real issue is that most of the government concern wouldn't be a problem if they hadn't been pissing away social cohesion and community trust for the last several decades.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

No. the "too" was to emphasize the relationship between "friend" and "librarian" for the joke fail "disgusting" bit.

Librarian you say?

https://veuwer.com/i/3nkd.jpg

-Soylent f98

Ook!

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

but the advantages of technology usually outweigh the benefits

I'm pretty sure you borked that sentence. :think:

[Keating]

That's only because I haven't PM'd Nec for edit button privilege.

[Scented Nectar]

I think of it like a search warrant. Even though those are sometimes misused, the terrorist in question is a valid search. It's way outside of being a basic privacy issue. It's like a landlord refusing to open a high-tech lock on a tenant's door when there's a search warrant, with the tenant being the terrorist in question, who has already murdered people.

No, it's more like the FBI asking a large lock manufacturer to give them a skeleton key to all security locks the locksmith ever sold in the country. And after opening one lock with it, they'll destroy it, word of honour.

I doubt Apple would have to try hard to do it, or expend too much effort or resources. They know their products. And it wouldn't open the door to other people's privacy being at risk. Apple could simply refuse for any less valid situations, such as only open phones of terrorists who have murdered, like this guy, but not those who are merely suspected. I really think they are just scared of being considered islamophobic.

Not impossible they already have some routines lying around. But the fact that a hardware/software provider in principle can easily crack the encryption on their own devices should scare the whit out of you. They should open their code for all to inspect, plain and simple.

Easily fixed. Apple could open the phone in the privacy of their own offices, print out the info, and give the printout to the gov't. No one has to hand over any master keys. No one even has to see how they crack the encryption. Chain of evidence can be preserved by having one or more agents in the room who are not able to see the screen or keyboard action of the Apple person who's cracking the phone.

[Skep tickle]

I think of it like a search warrant. Even though those are sometimes misused, the terrorist in question is a valid search. It's way outside of being a basic privacy issue. It's like a landlord refusing to open a high-tech lock on a tenant's door when there's a search warrant, with the tenant being the terrorist in question, who has already murdered people.

No, it's more like the FBI asking a large lock manufacturer to give them a skeleton key to all security locks the locksmith ever sold in the country. And after opening one lock with it, they'll destroy it, word of honour.

I doubt Apple would have to try hard to do it, or expend too much effort or resources. They know their products. And it wouldn't open the door to other people's privacy being at risk. Apple could simply refuse for any less valid situations, such as only open phones of terrorists who have murdered, like this guy, but not those who are merely suspected. I really think they are just scared of being considered islamophobic.

Not impossible they already have some routines lying around. But the fact that a hardware/software provider in principle can easily crack the encryption on their own devices should scare the whit out of you. They should open their code for all to inspect, plain and simple.

Easily fixed. Apple could open the phone in the privacy of their own offices, print out the info, and give the printout to the gov't. No one has to hand over any master keys. No one even has to see how they crack the encryption. Chain of evidence can be preserved by having one or more agents in the room who are not able to see the screen or keyboard action of the Apple person who's cracking the phone.

AFAICT, the government isn't asking Apple to open the phone, but to make it possible for the government to do so. They want Apple to write software that would disable the 10-strikes-you're-out security feature, after which the government (FBI, whatever) would brute force guessing the password (entering 4-digit numerical codes in a methodical fashion until the phone opened) .

Again, AFAICT, some of the issues include (a) a court could require it be used in all sorts of cases since it now exists, (b) once the software exists it could get into the wrong hands, and (c) hackers and other governments would know it was possible & start working on getting a copy, or writing their own versions.

[Skep tickle]

I hit the submit button at Nugent's too soon, not having seen until too late Phil's sage advice not to rehash (or help prolong the rehashing) of Steers' recent "women who don't make ova are not women" argument.

So (not that it follows) here's a shameless reposting:

Steersman, you seem to think that you understand language better than everyone else, as you persevere in this odd proscriptive approach that simply doesn’t reflect real use. That’s been explained to you many times, including by a linguist. You’re tilting at windmills, my friend.

Consider for a moment that we’re back in the days before anyone knew about (human) ova much less chromosomes, before “intersex” and “transgender” were on people’s radar. In an incredible breakthrough, people noticed that there were pretty much 2 kinds of people, and they called them “women” and “men” (or the equivalent in their language). They noticed that many of the type called “women” could bear children – though not all of them did. They noticed that many of the type called “men” could father children – though not all of them did. There was no separate terminology that when a person couldn’t participate in this process or lost the ability to do so, that that person would drop out of their group, whether “women” or “men”.

Later, people tried to write down definitions for “women” and “men”, and in doing so focused on this reproductive ability, which is a feature of the group overall and many members of the group, but which is NOT REQUIRED to be categorized into one of these 2 groups. The capacity doesn’t have to be demonstrated, and membership in the group is not taken away if a person can’t prove they can fulfill that particular feature.

Reproductive capacity (fecundity) may be “sufficient” to categorize a person into one of these historical groups, but it’s not “necessary”, and (more important) it’s not the basis on which such categorization is done.

“Female” is the one TYPE of the 2 TYPES in a sexually dimorphic species; it doesn’t mean that an individual has to be fecund in order to be considered “female”. Same with “male”. Turns out it’s hard to write a definition of biological sex or gender that doesn’t end up at reproduction, but reproduction is NOT required for an individual to have a sex or a gender. I can’t believe this requires explaining.

To say, as you have been, that a woman who doesn’t produce ova for one reason or another ISN’T A WOMAN is ludicrous. I do follow how you talked yourself into believing it, but you seem to have gotten wedged into this viewpoint which simply does not match even the reality of the most straightforward situation of a sexually dimorphic species in which some individuals are not fertile.

So: please stop. It comes across as insulting, even though you very likely don’t mean it that way.

(And my focus on biological sex and the binary here was in no way meant to ignore or minimize people who are intersex or identify outside the gender binary.)

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I've replied in jocular form. I hope that's okay and not some sort of Bobsplaining.

[Shatterface]

It's not worth attempting to reason with Steers and derailing the thread isn't helpful

[Shatterface]

Him derailing it, that is.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

I think of it like a search warrant. Even though those are sometimes misused, the terrorist in question is a valid search. It's way outside of being a basic privacy issue. It's like a landlord refusing to open a high-tech lock on a tenant's door when there's a search warrant, with the tenant being the terrorist in question, who has already murdered people.

No, it's more like the FBI asking a large lock manufacturer to give them a skeleton key to all security locks the locksmith ever sold in the country. And after opening one lock with it, they'll destroy it, word of honour.

I doubt Apple would have to try hard to do it, or expend too much effort or resources. They know their products. And it wouldn't open the door to other people's privacy being at risk. Apple could simply refuse for any less valid situations, such as only open phones of terrorists who have murdered, like this guy, but not those who are merely suspected. I really think they are just scared of being considered islamophobic.

Not impossible they already have some routines lying around. But the fact that a hardware/software provider in principle can easily crack the encryption on their own devices should scare the whit out of you. They should open their code for all to inspect, plain and simple.

Easily fixed. Apple could open the phone in the privacy of their own offices, print out the info, and give the printout to the gov't. No one has to hand over any master keys. No one even has to see how they crack the encryption. Chain of evidence can be preserved by having one or more agents in the room who are not able to see the screen or keyboard action of the Apple person who's cracking the phone.

And thereafter they will be legally compelled to do so by every police agency and tin-pot dictator the whole world round.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

It's not worth attempting to reason with Steers and derailing the thread isn't helpful

Exactly so. Before attempting to reason with Steers, it's worth looking into all the times he has been successfully reasoned with. In his own mind, he is infallible. Like a SJW, your only options are to ignore or mock.

[HunnyBunny]

Steersman, you seem to think that you understand language better than everyone else, as you persevere in this odd proscriptive approach that simply doesn’t reflect real use. That’s been explained to you many times, including by a linguist. You’re tilting at windmills, my friend.

*snip a load of brilliant stuff*


So: please stop. It comes across as insulting, even though you very likely don’t mean it that way.

https://m.popkey.co/87529e/kdk5l.gif

Apropos of which Steers:

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/70/7037111 ... 7d0a07.jpg

[MarcusAu]

Mansplaining is when a man explains something to a women in a condescending or patronising way.

Condescension means talking down to someone.



(nb I stole this joke from Graeme Garden, specifically from "I'm Sorry, I haven't a Clue")

[feathers]

Can you imagine, DaveDodo007 how scary the Slymepit must be if those SJWs browsing here are too timid to venture a post?






BOO!

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/ima ... zy5gsr.jpg

[Guest_84d94f98]

[youtube]C37RcvpFnmEC37RcvpFnmE[/youtube]

-Soylent f98

[HunnyBunny]

I am beginning to think it is far better to leave these lies and innuendo to burn themselves out. Michael Nugent will not win against people invoking armies of fantasising minions who give no thought to the truth.

I have read all of Michael's posts on the latest round of smears. Nowhere from memory did I see him supporting anti-trans legislation. Does anyone have any idea what this muppet is smoking?

link here to a screengrab if they have the decency to delete the tweets:

[feathers]

Total agreement. If that's the way they want to play, then fatwas for the whole Iranian clergy.

Funny you should say that. I was thinking that one of the more effective ways to gum up the works on the whole fatwa/bounty issue would be to dish out bogus fatwas/bounties towards the people & people considered important to those issuing the fatwas/bounties.

Not that I recommend here do that. But if my ass was in the cross hairs, I might consider fighting fire with fire.
- Soylent f98

It would be kinda fun to see what happened if some western billionaire issues, say, 50 million Swiss francs on the life of ayatollah Khamenei.

We could call it a 'funwhat?'.

[HunnyBunny]

:lol: I like Helen Pluckrose.

[HunnyBunny]

The tweet she linked didn't show up. Here it is, enjoy :

[Jonathan]

The tweet she linked didn't show up. Here it is, enjoy :

While she's at it, why not stick her arm into a piranha tank? The result is likely to be the same, except the piranhas won't tweet about being oppressed afterwards.

[Steersman]

Steersman, you seem to think that you understand language better than everyone else, as you persevere in this odd proscriptive approach that simply doesn’t reflect real use. That’s been explained to you many times, including by a linguist. You’re tilting at windmills, my friend.

*snip a load of brilliant stuff*

So: please stop. It comes across as insulting, even though you very likely don’t mean it that way.

[.img]https://m.popkey.co/87529e/kdk5l.gif[/img]

Apropos of which Steers:

[.img]http://www.quickmeme.com/img/70/7037111 ... 7d0a07.jpg[/img]

Such well reasoned arguments from such masters of jurisprudence, particularly your last bon mot - how could I possibly not slink off in contrite embarrassment and ignominy. Oh, that's right, I didn't and won't:

Skep tickle #360:

… as you persevere in this odd [prescriptive] approach that simply doesn’t reflect real use. That’s been explained to you many times, including by a linguist. You’re tilting at windmills, my friend.

You might note that the Wikipedia article on dictionaries (1) indicates that there’s a heavy element of prescriptivism in dictionaries – which, I think, most linguists should have been aware of. A salient quote:

A different dimension on which dictionaries (usually just general-purpose ones) are sometimes distinguished is whether they are prescriptive or descriptive, the latter being in theory largely based on linguistic corpus studies—this is the case of most modern dictionaries. However, this distinction cannot be upheld in the strictest sense. The choice of headwords is considered itself of prescriptive nature ….

You might also follow the link to the headwords article, of which there are some 400,000 for English, although I’ll readily admit that I’m unsure of the implications of that claim. However, this from the article on taxonomy (2) seems relevant:

Taxonomy has been called "the world's oldest profession", and naming and classifying our surroundings has likely been taking place as long as mankind has been able to communicate.

Seems rather likely that that objective has heavily influenced, in a prescriptive fashion, both the evolution of language, and the “headwords” that presumably mark or denote those classes.

Turns out it’s hard to write a definition of biological sex or gender that doesn’t end up at reproduction, but reproduction is NOT required for an individual to have a sex or a gender. I can’t believe this requires explaining.

Indeed, though I’m surprised you’re not able to bite that bullet - prior ideological commitments? But I can’t believe that it requires explaining, and to you of all people, that one doesn’t get to claim membership in a class unless one possesses the attribute that defines said class. Are you going to give antibiotics to a healthy person? Perform an appendectomy on one?

So: please stop. It comes across as insulting, even though you very likely don’t mean it that way.

Sorry if my argument chaps your hide, but, with all due respect (seriously), as Hitchens said, “If someone tells me I’ve hurt their feelings, I say, I’m still waiting to hear what your point is." You, and no few other women, seem greatly offended by the consequential suggestion that if they’re no longer able to produce ova then you and they are not technically women. But I still don’t see how that carries all that much weight – particularly with the dictionary and taxonomy in the other balance pan. But, for instance, do you really think that by claiming that “title” you’re magically reinstalled on that throne, or guaranteed of never being deposed from it? Sure seems like an awfully weak reed to be putting much faith in, or to make a foundation for one’s sense of self.

This whole “debacle” over transwomen is, I think, largely if not entirely predicated on a refusal to come up with any credible and rational definition for the term. I’ve asked, probably, a dozen people to come up with one, and they have all folded their tents and stole off into the night with nary a peep from them thereafter – maybe you would care to try your luck? But it seems largely underwritten by a fear by many women that if they actually draw a line in the sand to exclude transwomen – the apparent motivation of many, with more than a little justification – then it’s likely they could wind up on the “wrong” side of it. But refusing to do so, apart from being egregiously anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, means the term is virtually useless, and leads to such idiocies as Aidan and company insisting that penis-havers can be lesbians. Seems that the overly-emotional attachment of many women to the term merely gives the more odious of the transactivists – the majority by the look of it – justification for claiming that because they have a “cowgirl outfit” – even if it’s only in their own rather disturbed minds – then they can be a cowgirl too. Does not compute – and in a rather large number of ways.

-----
1) “_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary”;
2) “_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)#History_of_taxonomy”;

[Sunder]

New Potholer.

[youtube]jhQdYvz0VwQ[/youtube]

[welch]

Just put Steersman on ignore like everyone else.

I don't. I've a $20 bet that one day he'll have an original thought.

Nothing new under the sun and all that. Or, at the risk of bringing out the mob with torches & pitchforks, and as Pigliucci is fond of noting, most if not all of modern philosophy is just footnotes to Plato.

However, if you'd get your head out of your arse and actually give some thought to what I'm saying then you might have more credibility - and be able to collect on your bet. For instance, I wonder if you ever took a close look at my post here [#33966] which illustrates, I think and as I suggested in earlier posts on the same topic, the statistical technique of principal components analysis. And my (ahem) brilliant idea being that using binary weighting is somewhat more useful than the standard two-dimensional X-Y plot which is basically limited to two components. Maybe the idea doesn't hold a lot of water, or it is already a standard technique - though I haven't seen anybody using it, but a Twitter exchange I had with some researcher in, I think, evo-psych didn't shoot the idea down in flames. I await your, no doubt cogent and detailed, refutation of it.

Oh christ, he's gone full Carrier.

[Ape+lust]

The tweet she linked didn't show up. Here it is, enjoy :

Oh. My. Gawd.

He really thought he'd get away with that. I'm sooooo thankful most people aren't stupid :dance:

http://imgur.com/0CfB1y9.png

[welch]

You're now speaking for the entire Pit, are you? What a dickhead.

Yes I did a poll. We are all in agreement.

I think we've both discovered and confirmed one of Steerzo's triggers.

[welch]

PZ almost condescended to like Deadpool. As always his hatred of his fellow man spoilt it for him.

http://i.imgur.com/IEIJlIM.jpg

I'd love to see PZ watch a movie with a black audience. I'd love even more for him to turn around and say something, anything, to one of them.

Really, any audience that isn't him.

[Ape+lust]

I am beginning to think it is far better to leave these lies and innuendo to burn themselves out. Michael Nugent will not win against people invoking armies of fantasising minions who give no thought to the truth.

I have read all of Michael's posts on the latest round of smears. Nowhere from memory did I see him supporting anti-trans legislation. Does anyone have any idea what this muppet is smoking?

link here to a screengrab if they have the decency to delete the tweets:

T'was ever thus :D

http://imgur.com/bA9qn8q.png

3 years later, Jason doesn't recall that HE might've had something to do with the tweet's regard as a joke.

http://imgur.com/SUk8Saf.png

[AndrewV69]

The Brown (University) Daily Herald: http://www.browndailyherald.com/2016/02 ... activists/

Headline:

Schoolwork, advocacy place strain on student activists
Students struggle with mental health, academic pressures as they act on social justice responsibilities

<chop>

Ferranti said she is “proud to work in a place where students come together over important social issues.” As administrators, “we are not just looking at protocols, we’re also thinking about what this means to the students who are there,” she added.

I really wonder how long this is going to last. That article makes it clear that ridiculous "activism" and coddling of hurt feelings takes a priority over learning at Brown. What alumni would want to donate money to a place like that? How many sensible voters are going to support Clinton or Sanders' plans to spend hundred's of billions of dollars to fund this nonsense for even more people?

All the single women?

So far, any affinity single women may feel with Hillary Clinton is being trumped by the aspirationally progressive vision of Bernie Sanders. Young women — young single women, at least the ­predominantly white ones who have so far cast their votes — have broken for him in startling numbers in both the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. In New Hampshire, according to exit polls, Sanders beat Clinton by 11 points with women and by 26 points with single women.

[welch]

This story is doing the rounds too, about a SJW 25 year old Yelp employee that thought it would be a good idea to write a scathing letter to her CEO condemning her awful working conditions and inadequate pay. The entitlement is strong with this one, and as seems to be increasingly common, all her problems are somebody else's fault. It won't come as a surprise to find out that she has since been relieved of her position, but that should make her happy right? I'm sure there will be a long queue of blue chip employers waiting to snap her up now, I mean how better to advertise yourself than this masterpiece?

So, English major pulling in minimum wage for the area notorious for high rents.

She choose the degree.
She choose the minimum wage job.
She choose to work in a city that is expensive to live in.
She choose to get her own apartment spending 85% of her income, instead of getting a place with room mates.

All of the granola Bay Area people are busy making sure that no one builds apartment buildings which would help lower the cost of rents.

That said, why on earth open up a minimum wage call center in a city where people have trouble affording a place to live. I think that it is insane that start ups opt for San Francisco.

They don't have much of a choice. One of the "rules" of VC funding is Thou Shalt Be in The Bay Area. The unwritten reason is "...Because This Is The Only Place In The World With Smart People, and Since Thou Needest Our Money, Thou'rt Our Bitch."

It's stupid as fuck on all the levels, but it allows them to have moronic diversity programs while encoding hiring and pseudo-HR practices that ensure they're only going to hire along a narrow range, then claim they're a meritocratic crucible or some such idiocy.

[welch]

Apple is so scared of being called islamophobic, that they are refusing to unlock a terrorist murderer's phone for the FBI, under the guise of protecting customer privacy and it being a "hard case" (yeah, sure it is!). This video needs thumbing down.

Why Apple is Rejecting The FBI’s Request for Universal Access to iPhones
[youtube]K0m_zbDitlY[/youtube]

Except being called "islamophobic" literally has nothing to do with it, and that may in fact be, literally, the stupidest reasoning behind it. It has nothing to do with islamophobia (give that apple was helping the FBI up until the FBI took steps to ensure that there was no other way to get to the data on the phone by, you know, changing the iCloud password, not being called islamophobic is a rather stupid charge) and everything to do with not allowing the FBI to mandate that Apple, and every other tech company maintain FBI-friendly versions of the OS.

I'm not normally a fan of slippery slope, but given this is the FBI, the idea that they would use THIS precedent (because if you buy their "no, no, JUST THIS ONCE" idiocy...i dunno, make sure someone doesn't let you near sharp things?) to then make a very small step into requiring this back door be built into everything, (given this is a stated goal of Comey et al) is hardly a stretch.

Seriously? "They don't want to be called islamophobic".

that's Steersman-level stupid.

[welch]

Apple is so scared of being called islamophobic, that they are refusing to unlock a terrorist murderer's phone for the FBI, under the guise of protecting customer privacy and it being a "hard case" (yeah, sure it is!). This video needs thumbing down.

Why Apple is Rejecting The FBI’s Request for Universal Access to iPhones
[youtube]K0m_zbDitlY[/youtube]

Well, he doesn't address what I think is the real issue. IMO it is this: can a government force someone to do something to assist them (for whatever reason, but lets concede it is a compelling reason), when that person or entity did nothing wrong or illegal in the first place?

This is not a case where Apple is being asked to turn over things in their possession (like that data being sought, or even tools that they already have that would unlock the phone). The government is asking Apple to expend effort and resources to help the government do what the government wants, and at the same time to forever destroy what Apple considers to be a valuable (and completely legal) feature of their products.

I think it is a very important principle to defend. I'd have no problem if Apple decided to help them (even if backdoor- hush hush), but that should be their choice to make voluntarily.

That's certainly a principle to defend but Apple already records a shit-load of its customers data and sells it to third parties.

iPhones can track their customers movements, purchases, even the amount of exercise you take.

Actually, they don't sell it to third parties. It's one of the things differentiating them from Google. Shit, they're even canning their iAds program, since they can't reconcile the needs of an ad program with their refusal to sell data. Yes, it records the movement of the customers, that's called "location services" and also how run-tracking apps work. Also, without that, a device cannot provide GPS info. It's kind of important. But that does not mean Apple is selling your personal data to rando third parties. If you have proof, I'd love to see it, because it's counter to everything out there.

[welch]

I think of it like a search warrant. Even though those are sometimes misused, the terrorist in question is a valid search. It's way outside of being a basic privacy issue. It's like a landlord refusing to open a high-tech lock on a tenant's door when there's a search warrant, with the tenant being the terrorist in question, who has already murdered people.

No, it's more like the FBI asking a large lock manufacturer to give them a skeleton key to all security locks the locksmith ever sold in the country. And after opening one lock with it, they'll destroy it, word of honour.

I doubt Apple would have to try hard to do it, or expend too much effort or resources. They know their products. And it wouldn't open the door to other people's privacy being at risk. Apple could simply refuse for any less valid situations, such as only open phones of terrorists who have murdered, like this guy, but not those who are merely suspected. I really think they are just scared of being considered islamophobic.

Not impossible they already have some routines lying around. But the fact that a hardware/software provider in principle can easily crack the encryption on their own devices should scare the whit out of you. They should open their code for all to inspect, plain and simple.

One of the reasons Apple built the encryption into things like iMessages the way they did is because of that problem. It's designed to not have a back door. Apple doesn't have it either. That's not what the FBI wants. The FBI wants a completely different thing, which is to bypass the routines that prevent you from endlessly entering in PINs sans any form of slowdown or device wiping. Once you enter in the correct pin, the data on the device is decrypted. The encryption isn't backdoored at all.

The (relative) ease of brute forcing a 4-digit pin is why Apple is now HIGHLY encouraging 6-digit pins on iPhones.

[welch]

Well, at the risk of getting into an analogy battle, it more like the police requiring a disinterested neighbor to open the door so they can get in because he happens to have the ability to hack the lock (Lets assume the lock explodes and destroys the property if 3 failed attempts are made to enter the right code). The neighbor is free to assist, but IMO should not be compelled (under the thread of prison) to expend his time and effort to do so.

And how do you define "less valid situations"? Remember, its the government making that call, not Apple. Suspected pedophelia? Drug dealing? Alleged domestic abuse? Petty burglary? Insider trading? Selling non-taxed cigarettes? Criticising the mayor? Once Apples gives the governement the tools to unlock this phone, they will be able to unlock any similar phone they might want to in the future. And can other governments compel Apple to give them this tool? And to use for whatever "situation" they decide is "valid"?

Another point here, is that Apple is standing on principle. What the FBI is asking for is only possible because of the particular iPhone model in question. They're not actually asking Apple to unlock it, which Apple already can't do, but just to load on a crippled version of the operating system that will not automatically wipe the hard disk if more than 10 attempts are made to guess the password. The FBI themselves will then brute force the password by trying all possible combinations.

Newer iPhones have different security hardware and even if Apple were to load a different operating system onto them, the decision to wipe the data is no longer made by the operating system, but by the hardware. Thus, in the future there would be nothing even Apple could do in a similar situation.

Unless, of course, the US government requires all technology companies to cripple their hardware with backdoors. Note that China has been wanting companies to do this for some time, but so far hasn't been strong enough to require that. Be sure they're watching this with interest, and if the FBI succeeds, that's the beginning of the end for digital privacy not just from the FBI, but from all governments around the world.

Bingo. And again, Comey et al have literally stated that that is their end game. They do not want any form of encryption that they cannot bypass with ease to exist. They do not believe anyone but the government has a right to it.

[Ape+lust]

PZ almost condescended to like Deadpool. As always his hatred of his fellow man spoilt it for him.

http://i.imgur.com/IEIJlIM.jpg

I've never heard anyone accuse a movie audience of dishonestly enjoying themselves :shock:

But then, I've never watched anyone spend 5 years shoving Rebecca Watson up our noses as some sort of renaissance skeptic, either.

Every day that Peez doesn't wake up as Exalted Grand High Poobah of North America must be crushing for him.

[feathers]

While she's at it, why not stick her arm into a piranha tank? The result is likely to be the same, except the piranhas won't tweet about being oppressed afterwards.

Why yes, they do [paging Jan Steen].

[VR Guy]

Also, without that, a device cannot provide GPS info.

Why? I was under the impression that the satellites in GPS are just emitters and that longitude, latitude and altitude could be worked out client side without any additional connection.

[Sunder]

I've never heard anyone accuse a movie audience of dishonestly enjoying themselves :shock:

You have to think of it from the perspective of an SJW who often enjoys things that are "problematic" and so must pretend not to have enjoyed them. They just imagine normal people are doing the opposite.

[welch]

... if the courts can compel a bank to open a safety deposit box, why not Apple a phone?

How about because, in the case of a safety deposit box, the bank 1) owns the box 2) the box is in their possession, 3) which is on bank property, 4) the rental contract surely included a clause that permitted them to deliver the contents in response to subpoena, and 5) the act of drilling open the box would not have to be done by a bank employee?

Whereas Apple 1) does not own the phone, 2) does not have possession/control of the data on it, 3) does not have a contract where the owner gave Apple the right to hack their phone to look at his stored data, and not only that, 4) advertised the feature the government wants them to defeat as a positive feature of the phone (i.e., an implied contract that Apple would break by hacking it to let the government get access to the data), and 5) Apple would have to actually perform more than mere ministrial/clerical/document-processing work to comply with the subpoena. (They would have to write, test/debug, and deploy a variant of their operating system for this specific purpose.)

Plus, I promise you that if they give into this request, there will be many, many others. Governments all over the world, the NSA. You would open Pandora's box. This is not a one-time thing. Any assurances that it is are bald-faced lies.

It has also been presented, believably so, that the various TLAs in the government already CAN hack into the phone via as-yet unknown vulnerabilities, but if they do, then that hack would be part of the public record and Apple would then patch said vulnerability. By making Apple do it, the government retains these avenues in sans people knowing about them.

The parallel is how the FBI used to order local governments to not prosecute cases that would reveal details of Stingrays.

[welch]

About the Apple thing.

Really the only information the feds are looking for is about who bought the guns. The call data has already been collected. The phone actually wasn't the suspects but belong to his employer so should that complicates it.

Also from what I understand what is being ask of Apple will only apply to this one phone. As in if they want it to do with any other phone it will require unique code every time.

Also it seems that they are only even able to do this because of the age of the phone and the os.


I could have all my information wrong.

Once the precedent is set, it becomes serial monogamy. "Just this phone. Okay, now just THIS phone. Okay, now JUST this phone." it would be an endless stream of "just this phone"'s.

[welch]

To me, the whole Apple thing seems like nothing more than some marketing of the "brand". I fully expect to see them comparing themselves to the usual array of media appropriate cultural "heroes" in a forthcoming advert.

They actually are, in their way. There is the fact that thete brand would be horribly damaged overseas if they gave in, especially in totalitarian regimes, but also because this is not a one-time deal, no matter what the govt is saying now.

A bit. But this is literally also critical to all kinds of things. And if they do this for the US government, then they lose an important barrier against having to do it for every other government.

[welch]

About the Apple thing.

Really the only information the feds are looking for is about who bought the guns. The call data has already been collected. The phone actually wasn't the suspects but belong to his employer so should that complicates it.

Also from what I understand what is being ask of Apple will only apply to this one phone. As in if they want it to do with any other phone it will require unique code every time.

Also it seems that they are only even able to do this because of the age of the phone and the os.


I could have all my information wrong.

So my understanding is this auto-encryption feature requires hardware of iPhone 5 and up, and software of iOS8 and up. I frankly had no idea of the feature until last few days of media reports.

My initial reaction was 'Awesome, Apple!' But then I began to think through the implications and it all gets a bit murkier. Sam Harris's analogies weren't exactly spot on as gas been pointed out above, but he does raise the essential point of whether us all having a digital place the courts can't go is a good thing.

If certain goals and aims of the bizarro wing of the GOP become law, Sam Harris will be ecstatic to have a digital place the courts and the government can't get to.

[welch]

My initial reaction was 'Awesome, Apple!' But then I began to think through the implications and it all gets a bit murkier. Sam Harris's analogies weren't exactly spot on as gas been pointed out above, but he does raise the essential point of whether us all having a digital place the courts can't go is a good thing.

Good thing or not, I think lamenting the fact is pointless. Rather like worrying that 3D printers mean that everyone has the ability to print plastic guns, or that the internet universalised pornography. Sure, it's not fantastic, but the advantages of technology usually outweigh the benefits. All technologies have side effects.

As I said on the previous page, the real issue is that most of the government concern wouldn't be a problem if they hadn't been pissing away social cohesion and community trust for the last several decades.

Bingo. "No really, THIS time you can trust us."

[welch]

I think of it like a search warrant. Even though those are sometimes misused, the terrorist in question is a valid search. It's way outside of being a basic privacy issue. It's like a landlord refusing to open a high-tech lock on a tenant's door when there's a search warrant, with the tenant being the terrorist in question, who has already murdered people.

No, it's more like the FBI asking a large lock manufacturer to give them a skeleton key to all security locks the locksmith ever sold in the country. And after opening one lock with it, they'll destroy it, word of honour.

I doubt Apple would have to try hard to do it, or expend too much effort or resources. They know their products. And it wouldn't open the door to other people's privacy being at risk. Apple could simply refuse for any less valid situations, such as only open phones of terrorists who have murdered, like this guy, but not those who are merely suspected. I really think they are just scared of being considered islamophobic.

Not impossible they already have some routines lying around. But the fact that a hardware/software provider in principle can easily crack the encryption on their own devices should scare the whit out of you. They should open their code for all to inspect, plain and simple.

Easily fixed. Apple could open the phone in the privacy of their own offices, print out the info, and give the printout to the gov't. No one has to hand over any master keys. No one even has to see how they crack the encryption. Chain of evidence can be preserved by having one or more agents in the room who are not able to see the screen or keyboard action of the Apple person who's cracking the phone.

You really have no interest in how any of this works, do you.

[Ericb]

Total agreement. If that's the way they want to play, then fatwas for the whole Iranian clergy.

Funny you should say that. I was thinking that one of the more effective ways to gum up the works on the whole fatwa/bounty issue would be to dish out bogus fatwas/bounties towards the people & people considered important to those issuing the fatwas/bounties.

Not that I recommend here do that. But if my ass was in the cross hairs, I might consider fighting fire with fire.
- Soylent f98

It would be kinda fun to see what happened if some western billionaire issues, say, 50 million Swiss francs on the life of ayatollah Khamenei.

We could call it a 'funwhat?'.

I'm sure Trump would be game for that.

[Lsuoma]

I've replied in jocular form. I hope that's okay and not some sort of Bobsplaining.

Frogsplaining.

[Ericb]

download/file.php?avatar=221_1438715957.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/281468m.png

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Steersman wants to deport Muslims because they can't fit in with Western liberal ideals. Western liberal ideals, especially Canada, includes religious liberty and inclusion. Therefore Steersman is incompatible with Western ideals.

#DeportSteersMann

[Billie from Ockham]

Mansplaining is when a man explains something to a women in a condescending or patronising way.

Isn't a bit circular to define "mansplaining" as "patronising"? In any event, it's sexist.

Is anyone else getting tired of SJWs inventing sexist and/or racist new labels for things that already have non-sexist and non-racist labels?

[John D]

Mansplaining is when a man explains something to a women in a condescending or patronising way.

Isn't a bit circular to define "mansplaining" as "patronising"? In any event, it's sexist.

Is anyone else getting tired of SJWs inventing sexist and/or racist new labels for things that already have non-sexist and non-racist labels?

I have made a promise to myself that anyone using the term mansplaining is entirely off my friend list... and I mean all friend lists (facebook, game clubs, personal friends, all types of friends, movie actors, writers...etc...). Anyone using this term is 100% certain to be infected with the "idiot fembot virus". Using this term is diagnostic of fembot disease with 100% accuracy. I must avoid them at all cost and keep my family away from them so we avoid contracting the fembot virus.

[Billie from Ockham]

I've replied in jocular form. I hope that's okay and not some sort of Bobsplaining.

Frogsplaining.

If you want to acknowledge Phil's claimed lived experience, I believe that you need to write "tailfinsplaining" (at least for today).

[deLurch]

Steersman wants to deport Muslims because they can't fit in with Western liberal ideals. Western liberal ideals, especially Canada, includes religious liberty and inclusion. Therefore Steersman is incompatible with Western ideals.

#DeportSteersMann

Deport him to where?

Sir, I think you just finally made a solid case for President Trump to build up a giant wall around our nation's boarders and keep out the illegal.

[Skep tickle]

<snip>

<snip>

<snip>

Why not just put a bow on it & call us hysterical? ;)

Definitions aren't necessarily complete, just good enough to convey the sense of the word. I'm going to guess this happens more often with nouns but that's purely a guess. Approaching a definition that's descriptive as if it were prescriptive leads to reasonable people saying "hunh? no" as they are in your attempt to hold the world's feet to the fire and change their common understanding of "woman". (I agree that trans* and intersex add a new dimension to this, but your personal conclusion about what "woman" means doesn't even need trans* and intersex to fall apart completely, even though you can't recognize that it has.)

Couple of points, before I head off to work.

First, judges & lawyers often have to decide what a word means, either precisely or in its common use, and it's not uncommon for them to go by the common use (aka "reasonable person") understanding, perhaps most famously in Jacobellis v Ohio in 1964 (emphasis added, & different than was added at the link):

The most famous opinion from Jacobellis, however, was Justice Potter Stewart's concurrence, holding that the Constitution protected all obscenity except "hard-core pornography." Stewart wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

The Court's obscenity jurisprudence would remain fragmented until 1973's Miller v. California. Many legal observers[who?] feel that, after Miller, it remained confusing and vague. What is obscene in one place can well be completely legal in another.

Second, "female" and "male" are biological terms, and biology is messy, including that not every individual fits the description of the larger group in which it's a member. Define "species" and compare it to your precious taxonomy as it's been adopted in biology. Are lions and tigers different species? How can "ring species" exist if the definition of "species" is correct? And so on.

In fact, I challenge you to define "life" in a way that is accurate and complete. Here's one admirable attempt, from the Oxford Dictionary (American English edition; emphasis added)

life, n. - the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

and "alive" is "(Of a person, animal, or plant) living, not dead" and "living" is "alive", which is circular thus impossible to conclude what either of those 2 words mean ;)

So, using your approach, surely we can conclude that to qualify as "life" an individual must have the "capacity for growth" and "reproduction" "preceding death". That would require us to believe that a person who doesn't have the capacity to reproduce preceding death isn't an example of "life", isn't "living". One might even suggest that older adults are not alive, because for decades "preceding death" they've lost the "capacity for growth" (though of course their girth could grow - ah, they are saved!).

(Viruses more typically than humans are considered to test the edge of the definition of "life" - once you have your definition, see how it does with viruses and other difficult examples.)

Etc. Off to work now.

[paddybrown]

Just read the "mansplaining" thread at Nugent's. Jesus but that Bob creature is a twat. I love the way he's noticed that nobody agrees with him, but doesn't seem to have noticed that everybody's taking the piss.

[deLurch]

It appears that one of the most even keeled youtubers has had it with a certain someone's bare faced lies.

[youtube]6bVZq2rAf4M[/youtube]

[HunnyBunny]

It appears that one of the most even keeled youtubers has had it with a certain someone's bare faced lies.

[.youtube]6bVZq2rAf4M[/youtube]

Seems it was also a step too far for YouTube. I just clicked the link in her twitter profile to have a look, and her account is gone:

http://i.imgur.com/XVqXMBs.jpg

[Scented Nectar]

Well, he doesn't address what I think is the real issue. IMO it is this: can a government force someone to do something to assist them (for whatever reason, but lets concede it is a compelling reason), when that person or entity did nothing wrong or illegal in the first place?

This is not a case where Apple is being asked to turn over things in their possession (like that data being sought, or even tools that they already have that would unlock the phone). The government is asking Apple to expend effort and resources to help the government do what the government wants, and at the same time to forever destroy what Apple considers to be a valuable (and completely legal) feature of their products.

I think it is a very important principle to defend. I'd have no problem if Apple decided to help them (even if backdoor- hush hush), but that should be their choice to make voluntarily.

I think of it like a search warrant. Even though those are sometimes misused, the terrorist in question is a valid search. It's way outside of being a basic privacy issue. It's like a landlord refusing to open a high-tech lock on a tenant's door when there's a search warrant, with the tenant being the terrorist in question, who has already murdered people. I doubt Apple would have to try hard to do it, or expend too much effort or resources. They know their products. And it wouldn't open the door to other people's privacy being at risk. Apple could simply refuse for any less valid situations, such as only open phones of terrorists who have murdered, like this guy, but not those who are merely suspected. I really think they are just scared of being considered islamophobic.

Well, at the risk of getting into an analogy battle, it more like the police requiring a disinterested neighbor to open the door so they can get in because he happens to have the ability to hack the lock (Lets assume the lock explodes and destroys the property if 3 failed attempts are made to enter the right code). The neighbor is free to assist, but IMO should not be compelled (under the thread of prison) to expend his time and effort to do so.

And how do you define "less valid situations"? Remember, its the government making that call, not Apple. Suspected pedophelia? Drug dealing? Alleged domestic abuse? Petty burglary? Insider trading? Selling non-taxed cigarettes? Criticising the mayor? Once Apples gives the governement the tools to unlock this phone, they will be able to unlock any similar phone they might want to in the future. And can other governments compel Apple to give them this tool? And to use for whatever "situation" they decide is "valid"?

They wouldn't have to give them the tools. And certainly not to foreign governments. Do it in-house and give a printout of the results to the US gov't. Apple could decide for themselves based on the individual cases. A for-sure terrorist who has for-sure kills under their belt, should not need long to decide on. Very different than suspected anything, and very different from more minor things like non-terrorist, non-serial, ordinary killings. I don't see any slippery slope in this. However, if the government were to insist that Apple give them the virtual "key" for unlimited future use at the gov't's discretion, then they'd be right to say no.

[ffs]

Mansplaining is when a man explains something to a women in a condescending or patronising way.

Condescension means talking down to someone.



(nb I stole this joke from Graeme Garden, specifically from "I'm Sorry, I haven't a Clue")

It's only mansplaining when WE do it