Do you understand how terrible that argument sounds?

And how terrible is it when it is true?

"They aren't protecting us from terrorists, they're trying to make us pay for movies and music! We want them for free!"

You added "We want them for free". I never said that. But yes, if I have to choose between free movies, or a necessary police state to enforce copyrights, I know what I choose.

Kilometers are a measure of distance. But could 'two kilometers in area' mean the same as square kilometers? My English is by far not good enough, to decide this. :-)

Are you asking what your goal is? Or what the government's goal is?

What the government's goal is.

I also assume that the government is actually acting in good faith, in attempting to prevent terrorism.

Ok. I don't believe this. I just think they are paid by the content industry. 100% in line with SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP or whatever the acronym of the day is.

You first replied to me: "You started off so beautifully...."
I wrote that Mr Hannigan is an extremist. Everyone who tries to erode civil rights is an extremist. This makes only sense with the second part, that all this is mainly done for copyright protection. Because if there really were a noticeable number of terror acts yearly with a high number of victims, and if internet surveillance really were a viable tool to prevent such terrorism, it would be a sensible thing to do and he would not be an extremist. The extremist part is that he tries to erode the civil and constitutional rights of millions for the protection of the profit of a few.

You're talking about BILLIONS of people. Call me old fashioned, but I don't think you can paint people with that broad of a brush.

And I said: There is no Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist hive mind. Cheating is always done by an individual.

Also, I don't think Religious belief is a separate category from other closely held beliefs. Try talking science to the crazy anti GMO or anti Vaccine crowd and see how far you get.

But I agree with you here. First crazy anti GMO or anti Vaccine crowd are not necessarily atheists. And second even if they are, it does not mean that they cannot be stupid. There are enough pseudo-atheists, which are 'proud' not to believe in a god, but happily replaced god with some other mumbo-jumbo. Stupidity is not bound to a certain religious belief.

First, I don't see any statistics. Is that an omission or is it a bias?

Neither nor. If you have two groups where one group can do more or has the incentive to do more, then there will be done more in this group. Good or bad. My hypothesis is that the group of religious people have one incentive more to cheat, which atheists don't have: To defend their believe. This has nothing to do with statistics? If you don't like the term 'statistic' in this context, what about 'theory of probability'?

Also your comment seems to have gone from believing research results from these groups to just a general "what religious people say."

Perhaps, but does it matter? I could also claim that the question was too imprecise. What kind of research? I doubt religious people have any reason to manipulate the latest semi-conductor research results, or lie about the environmental effects of fracking any more than atheists. So, maybe I was in error to interpret it as 'research results, which in any way affect their believe system'. IMHO any other question does not really make sense.

That technically isn't what was asked, and the result is over generalized.

Technically not, true. But over generalized? Perhaps generalized, but certainly not over generalized.

Any by what process, pray, did you find this to be self-evident and universal?

For an atheist rationality is important, not dogma.

What's important to an atheist is entirely dependent on the individual, no?

Sure. There might be some, who call themselves atheist, but don't really know what this means.

Atheist just means they don't believe in god, or that they believe there is no god.

Yes, atheists come like all other groups in great variety. Some are smart, some are dumb. Some did think through what they believe, others just slap the atheist label on themselves. It is true, no atheist believes in god. However, only the simpler minded ones actively believe that there is no god. When a theist says 'There is a god' and the atheist says 'There is no good', both make an affirmative statement, which they have to prove. People, who make claims, have to prove these claims. The real atheist never says that there is no god, he just demands proves from the theist.

And this is not the same as agnosticism. As I wrote before: For an agnostic the question cannot be decided. For an atheist this question does not even exist.

It says nothing of how 'important' they consider this to be.

It does. Atheism is a certain state of mind. Not believing in a god, because there is no positive proof that there is one, is only a part of this. True atheists also don't believe in the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, or Russell's teapot. And a true atheist would immediately change his mind the very second he gets new informations, which prove that god, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, or Russell's teapot exist. Atheism is less about believe, it is about dogmas. Atheists should be free of them, therefore it should not matter to them, if there is a god or not. Atheism is not a religion, but actively believing, that there is no god, is.

This is another difference between religion and atheism: Since religion is practically based on nothing, you can never say: 'You got it wrong'. At best it can be said that one got a certain 'colour' of religion wrong. For atheism there are no different colours. And one can get atheism wrong.

Your particular position on the spectrum is not the textbook definition of the term, nor typical of all adherents. In fact what you've described is closer to agnostic than atheist.

I expected something like that. But no. An agnostic says it cannot be decided whether there exists a god or not. For an atheist there is not enough supporting evidence for one to even think about the possibility if its existence. Or in other words: For an agnostic the question cannot be answered. For an atheist the question does not even exist. Nevertheless, for an atheist it is not important that there is not a god. Therefore there is no incentive to fake one away. And those with a flourishing business publishing books, if they really find irrefutable evidence that against all probability god exists, I don't know how many of them would dare to go on denying him. ;-D

There are concrete examples how religious people faked 'evidence' to support their religious world view.
A nice example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringer%27s_Lying_Stones

Since there isn't anything to 're-hide' for atheists, your statement is unprovable and therefore empty. Perhaps you could ask Richard Dawkins what he would do? For atheists it is not important whether a god exists or not. They just don't see any evidence for its existence so they don't care. Give only one irrefutable proof and most of them would immediately accept its existence. I would. Tough in that case I'd immediately try to enlist with Satan.

I chose atheist scientists, who use Pipedot. :-D

I think we are talking a bit at cross-purposes. What you say is 100% true. If I have a goal I'd try everything to convince as many people as possible. To do that I would use whatever promises me the most success. However, on the receiving end of such a manipulation attempt I don't care what makes sense for most people. I want to know what the goal is. And the goal is not internet surveillance. This is only a means to an end. So, what is the goal?

Hmm... your point of view is valid. But there are others. For instance you wrote:

Or if they are funded by a large oil company and do climate research...

Yes, people have reasons to fake research results. They may be paid to do so. They may do it to get funding and/or fame. Those reasons are equally valid for religious and not religious people. However, unlike Atheists and perhaps Agnostics, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists can have an extra incentive to fake results. One more kind of temptation. So statistically one should be more careful about what religious people say.

Of course, this is only statistics, there should not be an automatism to dismiss their research. There is no Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist hive mind. Cheating is always done by an individual.

Not quite true, but also not quite false. Do you think that you can get a terror group, which is capable to utilize an abandoned nuclear submarine or poorly secured nuclear weapons, by snooping around in peoples private lives? Causing an economic disaster without leaving very visible traces, which cannot be followed without a general internet surveillance should be even more impossible.

Btw... terrorism was never as easy as today. One short trip to certain African countries could even the dumbest terrorist provide with enough material to do real damage. But again... Nothing which can be prevented or solved by playing big brother.

Want to save lives? The lightning argument is too weak? Put more cops on the streets. Pay and educate normal police better. 14,772 murder cases in 2010 in the usa. But of course it is much more important to fight to prevent the 15 terror victims a year.

True. Or course I don't agree. And yes, if this were all I said, it would be quite lame. But I think I also explained in detail, why I don't agree. Don't you have a response to that part?

I don't agree. One of the most important parts to expose extremists is to discover their motives. For a general internet surveillance there are not too many possible motives, which justify that kind of effort. Especially since it is not very popular.
As I pointed out, terrorism is not a sufficient explanation. There are far too few terror acts and most of them are
unorganized and not of the kind where internet surveillance would help. So not much of a career move here.
Child porn? More or less the same. Drugs? Sure, the small time street dealer has to coordinate with his upstream provider
when and where to get his next delivery. I am sure this is done by email. Most other types of cyber criminality leaves a money trail. Those can be followed even now. Fear of a revolution? Democracy works quite well. Most relevant countries have at least two parties. If one becomes unpopular, the opposition gets a chance. Masses are mollified. Rinse repeat. So the upper 10000 have nothing to fear. Snowden prevention? Maybe, but those attempts to control the net are much older than the Snowden even.

Now, if you factor all this in, tell me, what remains as motive? What remains where internet surveillance actually makes
sense? Where it could work? Who is willing to invest millions of $ to lobby lawmakers? Who is willing to stifle upcoming new
business models, which could create a new boom, e.g. like the vcr did when it become popular? Who does not care about
public appearance?

Mr Hannigan is an extremist and proof that better surveillance does not help against extremists.
Everyone who tries to erode civil rights is an extremist. But people are dumb. How many people
die in car accidents every year? According to Wikipedia: 32,999 in 2010 in the USA alone. How
many terroristic acts? How many died in terroristic acts in 2010 in the USA? 15 people.
According to:
http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should
it is four times more likely to be killed by a lightning bolt than by a terror attack.
I doubt that in other countries the ratio is much different.

Would internet surveillance help to prevent terror attacks? Hardly. And I suppose the whole population
has to be monitored to solve, who did the last/next school shooting.

Again: There is only one 'crime' for which an all-over internet surveillance is necessary: Copyright violations.
Ok, to a lesser extend libel. But certainly not terrorism, drugs, or child porn.

Nope... Totally different combat areas.

I never did get over my teenage rebellion years. :-)
But if I ever wanted something like that.... I would never use something preconfigured like that.
Would spoil all the fun. And where is the individuality?

To 1: Hardly prevents any terroristic acts. Terroristic acts are quite rare. In my eyes terrorism is a very weak excuse to observe the whole population.

To 2: Easy for them to restrict themselves just to meta data. Sound good in the public... and is 100% sufficient to enforce copyright.

To 3: There is no internet provider, who does not quickly responds to c. p. take down notices. C. p. is the only thing where practically every country agrees on. And how much c. p. is there? I surf the net for more than 30 years and did not stumble upon any. You cannot openly advertize it. You cannot have ads on c. p. sites. To catch c. p. users and producers a much better and totally sufficient way is to follow the cash flow.
Here a good example, what really is significant for certain groups:

http://falkvinge.net/2012/05/23/cynicism-redefined-why-the-copyright-lobby-loves-child-porn/

I'd bet that if we were able to follow most of the lobbying paths for data retention, we would in more than 90% of all case end with the MPAA and RIAA. I all countries.

The data retention is part of anti-terrorism legislation and it will be used for a variety of investigations (counterterrorism, organised crime, counter-espionage and cyber security). Yes, copyright enforcement also gets mentioned but I don't think it is not the main goal.

But copyright enforcement is the only area where data retention works. Terrorism? If you already have suspects, you don't need a new law. If you don't have suspects, I doubt that data retention helps. Want to search a billion emails for: 'Hey, wanna help me to blast a building tomorrow?'. Up to now I did not hear of a single case, which has been prevented or solved by internet surveillance. Same for organized crime, etc. So yes, I think copyright enforcement is the main goal. IMHO counterterrorism, organised crime, counter-espionage and cyber security... you forgot child porn... are just smoke screens.

Look at the original TechCrunch article. I just shortened their headline. Furthermore the 'war' between the new payment service providers is currently hottest between Apple and MCX with MCX members shutting out Apple's tech.

Maybe. But I really think this is not the same. In their own shops they have at least on one site total control. As payment service provider they are only middleman between unreliable customer and unreliable vendors. Maybe I overestimate the problems, this certainly is not my area of expertise. Nevertheless, before I would use one of those services, I'd wait a year or two and watch the news. I trust neither Apple, nor Google. For different reasons. MCX? Never heard of them before... so they are somewhat of a blank slate to me.

Yes. Only delayed. Sooner or later this bill will go through. It is just a matter of time. Same in Germany. A data retention law was rejected several times, but is reintroduced in almost regular intervals. The interests behind these laws are powerful and they have to succeed only once. Once such a law is enacted, it is almost impossible to repeal it again.

In that case: $0. Fits perfectly in option 1.

Awww... come on. The polls are fun polls. So they deserve fun responses. And fun responses are a sure sign that I am feeling
happy. :-D

And if I find something interesting, I put it into the pipe. Promised. :-) <--- Happy face. ;-) <--- *wink*

Sure. But exact $100? Not more, not less? Come on... some programmers here. And this is a not so rare fringe case, which must be anticipated and correctly handled. :-D

...exactly $100 in my pocket, which is the correct option to chose? $0-$100? Or $100-$300? ;-)

Does https help? The content is encrypted, true, but does this protocol prevent the provider from putting an envelope around it so the receiver still can identify the sender? I never had an interest how https works on a low level. Perhaps I should look into it.

... you forgot my wheelchair. *smiley of your choice*

What you say might be true or not. But unless you can prove your accusations, your should not make them. And certainly you should not make them as A.C. It smells.

When you are showered by gamma/cosmic rays, or high energy particles, does it matter where they come from?

But should one day for whatever reasons Window Maker not be available anymore, LXDE is probably quite on top of the alternatives I would try.

simple, intuitive, and stays the heck out of your way so you can work.

Perfect.

Two desktop environments, which I probably never will use: GNOME and KDE = bloat. At least for me. I installed KDE for my wife and she is happy with it.

Hammer or not. IMHO the main problem of the ICANN is that there is no viable alternative.
That's why I find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin Namecoin so interesting. Though I must admit, that I didn't try any *coins myself, yet.

I definitely will give it a try.

I skimmed through the project page and decided: Overkill for my needs. Agreed, far more powerful than what I have now, but far more powerful means also far more complicated... means higher security risks.
I don't need calendaring or messaging data. A pure email solution via IMAP is perfect for me. Access under Linux: Claws Mail. Under Android: K-9 Mail. Under Windows... erm... don't need mail to start my games.

But I bookmarked the project page. Should I ever need groupware features, I now know it exists. However, should I ever install it, it most likely will be for other people. For me... I deeply distrust such universal-all-in-one-super-duper-everything gadgets. Open source or not.

Thanks, not necessary. I have my own dedicated server. When I use a free mail service, I never use their web interface, but let them forward all incoming mail to this server. On this server I run http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dovecot_%28software%29 dovecot, which make my email available via IMAP on my desktops at home. For most people this configuration would be overkill, but I host several git repositories on this server and use it to store backups. The email handling is just a nice additional feature.

Change file formats every couple version.

That's not what I would call 'leave it alone' ;-)

28 years. Don't forget the way back... when you don't find anything usable there. ;-)

If you leave it alone... how do you convince people to buy a new version, when they are totally happy with the old one?

Nobody is lined-up and waiting to blast-off to Mars right now

This might be true. But it still is sad. More and more hurdles against human space flights are discovered. Faster than light... good chances that it will never happen. Manned interstellar flights?
At speeds above 0.3c, which is for all its worth far too slow to get anywhere, the space dust turns into deadly and hard to shield radiation:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610030

When a ship accelerates to a relativistic velocity above 0.3c, interstellar gas becomes a flow of relativistic nucleons, which, in itself, is nothing less than hard radiation bombarding the starship, its travelers, and all of the electronic equipment aboard.

And now even flying around within the solar system is no really reliable possible.

Matter of taste. I like my stuff separated. 'Check and follow-up'... I see what you mean, but for me a couple of procmail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procmail) rules, which sort my email into folders, are totally sufficient. Everything in a standard format, so I never have to fear vendor lock-in is extremely important to me. Rule of thumb: If a program changes my mail folder in any way that I cannot open it in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutt_%28email_client%29 mutt anymore... it is dead to me. Even though I rarely use plain old mutt nowadays.

The tragedy of gmail is that at first the interface was very good and it's gotten worse with each iteration.

That is the reason why I avoid web services wherever I can. I got my fair share of flame, when I said that I hated this or that new version of interface, for instance /., or sourceforge. 'Conservative', 'mossback', 'stick-in-the-mud'... and worse I have been called. Strangely, I never got a clear answer when I asked how they would like it when I enter their homes while they are away, and redecorate. Paint the wallpapers in a different color, change the carpets, and reorganize their wardrobes and such things. They come home and suddenly everything is different.

A web service, unless I host it myself, never belongs to me. Features can come and go, or get changed. And very often I have the feeling, it has nothing to do with usability, but politics.

A good choice for beginners. But I worked with LaTeX long before there was LyX, so it is no real help for me.

....what's perfect for me is still LaTeX.

Hmm... hard to flame and troll about this story. So no need for me to go to /. ;-)

...thanks, but no thanks, Google. Google services are simply too unreliable. They come and go. For me normal email is good enough as it is and my inbox is exactly as smart as I want it to be.

A weakening magnetic field could interrupt power grids and radio communication,

This does not sound good. I saw once a documentation what might happen when a huge EMP destroys the infrastructure of the modern western world. In the documentation one possible source of such an EMP was an extra-terrestrial gamma-ray burst. So compared to such an event, how does the effects measure to the weakening magnetic field? Might be that such a polarity change never before caused a serious catastrophe. Before the mid-20th century it most likely would not have been much of a problem either. However, the predicted gamma-ray burst EMP scenarios for today's tech/power dependencies came quite close to an extinction level event for humans.

Cut the scientists some slag. They need to convince people to give research funding, who cannot distinguish Harvard from Hogwarts.

Trying to convince people not to too-firmly base their conclusions on some currently accepted theories where the supporting evidence is weak or there are known unresolved problems.

Not sure if I agree here. I have quite a good scientific education. However, in 99.99% of all scientific fields I am just layman. All people are. Nowadays nobody can have a complete overview over science. Not even a complete overview in once specific field, e.g. physics. So you have to go with the masses = currently accepted theories. And this is fine as long as one has a base knowledge how science works: You develop a hypothesis. You try to find evidence, which supports your hypothesis. And most importantly you also try to find evidence, which disproves your hypothesis. If something disproves your hypothesis, you drop it immediately, or try to adjust it so that there is no contradiction. This way you can develop your theory. Weak evidence? As long no contradicting evidence not a real problem just a reason for more research. Known unresolved problems? Does not necessarily devalue your theory. Might be that it can be extended. DNA inheritance is not wrong just because there also are epigenetic effects.

I am similarly cautious about theories on dark matter,

I am not. It is the currently accepted theory. It does not contradict anything else I learned. I am not able to disprove it, or do otherwise substantial work on this field. So I accept dark matter as what it currently is: An attempt to explain certain observations. If anyone comes with a better explanation... I'd immediately drop dark matter. Give me enough evidence I'd forgo everything I learned. Give me enough evidence, and I 'believe' in unicorns and magic.

Btw... to be exact: The existence of dark matter is currently no theory, but only a hypothesis. To become a theory it needs evidence for its existence beyond being a pure mathematical trick to explain otherwise unexplainable observed gravitational effects.
Furthermore in science you cannot say 'it is only a theory'. There is nothing 'higher' than a theory in science. Theory of relativity (general or special) I am not sure there is a theory, which has been so thoroughly tested. Probably thousands of experiments, which confirm the theory of relativity. And it is still a theory... an will ever be... unless someone proves it wrong.

It's more of a nuisance with nutritional or diet theory-of-the-week,

Nutritional or diet theory is mostly neither a hypothesis nor a theory.... the best term to describe most of this field is 'religion'.

Actually I used the word 'controversial'. My story got somewhat improved by the editor (thank you), so it got dropped.

But where do you see that someone want to convince people that insect genetics has direct bearing on
humans? The only thing that was said was: 'A new and unexpected mechanism in the reproduction process
of insects has been discovered. Let's see if it or something similar exists for other species, too'. Epigenetic
effects have already been proven to exist for animals and even humans. Epigenetic effects provide a plausible
mechanism for what was discovered with the insects. So IMHO it is not far fetched to at least look, if something similar
exists outside the insect kingdom, too.

That this stuff is happening - in the USA, at least - despite a culture increasingly hostile to the "educated elite" and whatever other impolite names the likes of Sarah Palin came up with for people who like science -

Who cares what the Eloi think?
http://s25.postimg.org/yse3ijo4r/b5u8_2l.gif