Ok, I have to ask this, and I apologize in advance for it being out of topic.
How on earth are you well informed on so many topics spanning different fields of science and literature? Your comments are amazingly well informed, and I would like to know how you do it.
[Blush] Thanks for your kind question. Let me first of all say that there is a lot that is discussed here on HN that I know nothing about, and in threads on those topics, I am in lurk mode, learning from the rest of you. So thanks.
On some topics, I have a different perspective just because I am older than most people here, so I remember history that other participants have to read about. Genetics research to be a responsible popular author about that research is part of my work, so this topic was work-related. I got lucky over the weekend, because I had just looked up the human population research articles to get ready for some contentious editing on Wikipedia, and thus all of the sources were at hand. Some of the other topics I comment about are also work-related, or related to my former work or my higher education degrees (neither of which were in computer science).
Dr. Peter Venkman: Ray, pretend for a moment that I don't know anything about metallurgy, engineering, or physics, and just tell me what the hell is going on.
Dr Ray Stantz: You never studied.
(I think the answer is simple: he has an interest in all those things, so he follows them).
He's probably also disciplined enough not to sound off on topics that he doesn't know anything about.
I was consulting (software) at a client site and one of the employees at the client remarked that I seemed to know everything about everything. I just replied that it was a trick - I only talk about the things I'm informed on, and when a question came up on a topic I didn't know anything about, I just redirected the conversation back to my expertise. I had a hammer and worked hard to make everything a nail. :)
So... when you're not a consultant with a need to impress people, you instead redirect the conversation to subjects other people know, which interests you? :-)
> The government's bottom line is this: their rules trump the public's statutory rights.
Mind boggling. And this is the same government that's invading sovereign countries, has its agencies undertake black operations to overthrow foreign democratically elected bodies that don't serve its interests [1], all in the name of bringing "democracy" to those regions. Here we have that same government making a fool out of the very people that elected it.
SSL/TLS was broken once by breaking MD5. Now if the NSA can break SHA-1 using its numerous known weaknesses (there's a working attack on SHA-1 with 2^52 operations), they can pull off internet-wide MITMing.
It's safe to assume the NSA can easily do way more than 2 petaflops, and they have an exaflop goal, and that would be enough to run known attacks against DES, factor 1024bit RSA moduli ... and if they can compromise just one root CA (which uses 1024bit RSA) they can issue valid certifications of their own and MITM everyone, and none would be the wiser.
And all of this assuming the NSA relies on publicly known weaknesses in SSL/TLS. The matter of the fact is that they have very smart people with access to unlimited resources researching new vulns and actively exploiting them.
> Then I pointed that their prophet had a 9 year old wife
The age of Aisha when her marriage to Muhammad was consummated is unknown. Different reports of an age of 9 to 16.
> that by the way this girl also wrote good part of their holy book
No. She is a Hafez (one who recites the Quran by heart) and among those who helped in the efforts to collect the Quran, she did not _write_ it, or any parts of it. [1]
He married her at six and had sex with (raped?) her at nine.
These are information from "respected" sources and are known by anyone with a bit of knowledge about islam.
I'm not interested in an argument over this, since it's off topic to the OP. My original comment's purpose was to point out the inaccuracies in the comment I replied to. Otherwise, this article [1] is a good read.
I'm not surprised you don't want to argue it if your source is that revisionist diatribe. According to the article it's certain that Aisha went on to be an incredible stateswoman but equivalent sources that say she was 9 when [she and] Mohammed consummated their marriage can't be trusted?
Also it cunningly ignores Mohammed's [other] documented rapes - like Saffiyah - and breaking of the rules he'd laid down (taking more than 4 wives, taking the wife of his [adopted] son). Such records paint a pretty consistent picture.
16 is still less than 18 (that is what I was arguing about with that friend).
And wrote I mean the Hafez part or whatever, I don't know enough about the subject to use correct technical terms like that.
For example the Bible (I am christian) has parts of it that were inspired by God, but we still say that whoever put it on the paper is author to simplify some (non-theological) discussions.
Pretty big difference between 9 and 16, though. Like, say, 16 being the age of consent in most countries.
And I've come to the conclusion that if you don't know about someone's religion, it's best not to criticise it, because you might just end up looking like an ignorant idiot.
16 years old is also no longer considered minor as far as sex is concerned in many, many countries. A bit on the creepy side for someone on the other side of 20 to date, yes, but not illegal.
A bit on the creepy side for someone on the other side of 20 to date
For some people, perhaps. Individuals differ, I've met a few 16yo girls who were very much adult, as far as their intellect, personality and temperament were concerned, and I have a very hard time trying to picture a relationship with someone more mature than an average 20yo male as "creepy".
The thing that matters is the power imbalance, which would be nearly always present. This is highly undesirable, as it invalidates consent to a large degree (i.e. while the initial consent might be unquestionable, it gets really murky when things get into withdrawing it). It's similar as with employee-boss relationships and teacher-student. All of those can imaginably be okay, but the amount of dominance that the superior has over their partner makes things at least suspicious.
In fact, the "temperament" thing is one of the most commonly invalid, as having the "temperament" higher at 16 than 25 is not really that uncommon, intellect basically stays the same until 30, just gaining experience (!). And yet your 16 year old is (most likely) going to be dependent on their parents, and people will treat the older partner significantly more seriously even if they're a drunken slob, because the younger one is "a child" (and despite the older one being perceived as creepy. Ain't society great?).
How on earth are you well informed on so many topics spanning different fields of science and literature? Your comments are amazingly well informed, and I would like to know how you do it.