Slashdot Mirror

The Jaguar F-1 team Jackie used to own was just trashed (again) by Ferrari and summarily discarded for pennies by Ford Motor, who was the current owner.

I'll happily accept never seeing a movie by even my favorite actors (not that I've ever thought about it enough to pick one or two favorites) again if the choice is between that and losing my right to personal property. Because you know if that door is opened, it won't stop there. Computers can do all the stuff TiVos can do -- if it's right that we shouldn't be allowed complete control over our TiVos, then it must be right that we shouldn't be allowed complete control over our computers, either. Just think -- no more music "piracy," no more movie "piracy," no more video game "piracy," heck, no more copyright infringement at all! Because you know copyright was originally designed with the goal of letting big media cartels charge per view for every bit of our culture, right? I mean, the crazy idea of "limited times" and "enriching the public domain" had nothing to do with it! It sounds like this whole "Microsoft Palladium*" thing must be a great idea! Gotta get rid of those dirty hackers with communist ideas like "software should be Free," right?

Sorry, but no. It's a slippery slope argument, but I don't care -- it's possible that government and industry would stop short of fascism, but with the way things are going, I don't trust them to.

*They changed the name, but they're still working on the same concept...

There are no genes such that the possession of them constitute necessary and sufficient conditions for membership in any "race".

And just because the lines between races can be blurred doesn't mean they don't exist - lurchers exist, but so do sheepdogs and greyhounds[1].

Those who claim that there's no such thing as race are usually arguing from wishful thinking, supposing that if everyone believed their theories we'd all get along fine. Oh, and before anyone starts, belief in races is not the same as advocating racism.

[1]Yes those are dogs. Yes they are breeds. Breed is the subspecies divison in dogs and other domestic animals, so it's the equivalent of race in humans.

In logic, this is called a "false dilemma". In case you're wondering, it's a logical fallacy.

No, going to work to feed your family and staying at home to take care of them aren't inherently contradictory. Sane employers will accept the minor temporary hit to productivity, knowing that their ROI is an employee who's actually productive when he/she comes back. Trust me, sitting there at your desk worrying whether the kid is OK only fulfills the "sitting at the desk" portion of what management pretends is "productivity".

Besides, the grandparent post wasn't even trying to disprove that removing a brutal dictator is a good thing. He was pointing out that the Administration's justification for going to war has changed ex post facto.

Ah, good old argumentum ad hominem. Attacking the person does not prove the point.

Your argument still does not disprove that removing the dictator was a just and beneficial result of the war.

I would defend them, and you know why? They created my job...

Fallacy of appealing to consequences. Sorry, you can't defend something odious by pointing to one benefit among many unspoken ills. Would you then defend crime, saying that it creates many law-enforcement jobs? I have heard people do so.

...they are easy to overcome...

You also cannot defend something by appealing to scarcity of consequences. Mad cow disease afflicts extremely few people, which makes it a minor problem. But it does not cease to be a problem.

...and they simply do not [a]ffect the majority of bright individuals that use the net.

A good ISP is going to do egress filtering to prevent the first four items from having any impact (save adware, which may open popups). A good OS is not going to let the first four even get installed.

Prejudicial language. Anonymous authority. You are exonerating the perpetrator by blaming the victim. If only users had the right ISP and the right OS and enough brains, malware wouldn't be a problem! If only immigrants could speak English and get educated, they wouldn't be exploited! Clearly, such issues are not worth fixing.

Fake ATM theft is a scam, pure and simple. What you're saying is not to punish the people responsible for doing the actual crime, you're saying the creator of the ATM (or the card reader) is responsible. And that's ridiculous. The person that actually commits the crime has the intent, not the person that creates the tool.

Strawman. I made no statements about punishment. I made no statements about perpetrators' intentions. I did not even make any statements about tools. I did, however, make statements about the intentions of tool-creators. It is not in doubt that the tool-creator commits no crime. It is also irrelevant, because the issue here is whether he can be considered ethically -- not legally -- innocent for (1) creating a tool that's expressly designed, i.e., intended, to commit a crime, (2) for the express purpose of selling the tool to (3) people who expressly intend to commit that crime.

You have no guaranteed right to privacy. It's a derived right, and a weak one at that. After all, oh I'm safe from something like SPAM [...] but I'm not safe from the government databases or FBI, CIA, NSA, wiretaps and survelliance.

Red herring. Are you really claiming that because we are not "safe" (your word) from the FBI, we should not be safe from spammers and spyware? These things are unrelated. You may as well say that there's no sense locking my car to keep the neighborhood kids out, because someday a professional thief might show up.

Besides which, bringing up privacy is putting words in my mouth, as I didn't say what right I was referring to. I do not consider spam an invasion of privacy. It is deceptive trespass, no different from a solicitor dressed as a postal carrier.

--
Dum de dum.

I would defend them, and you know why? They created my job...

Fallacy of appealing to consequences. Sorry, you can't defend something odious by pointing to one benefit among many unspoken ills. Would you then defend crime, saying that it creates many law-enforcement jobs? I have heard people do so.

...they are easy to overcome...

You also cannot defend something by appealing to scarcity of consequences. Mad cow disease afflicts extremely few people, which makes it a minor problem. But it does not cease to be a problem.

...and they simply do not [a]ffect the majority of bright individuals that use the net.

A good ISP is going to do egress filtering to prevent the first four items from having any impact (save adware, which may open popups). A good OS is not going to let the first four even get installed.

Prejudicial language. Anonymous authority. You are exonerating the perpetrator by blaming the victim. If only users had the right ISP and the right OS and enough brains, malware wouldn't be a problem! If only immigrants could speak English and get educated, they wouldn't be exploited! Clearly, such issues are not worth fixing.

Fake ATM theft is a scam, pure and simple. What you're saying is not to punish the people responsible for doing the actual crime, you're saying the creator of the ATM (or the card reader) is responsible. And that's ridiculous. The person that actually commits the crime has the intent, not the person that creates the tool.

Strawman. I made no statements about punishment. I made no statements about perpetrators' intentions. I did not even make any statements about tools. I did, however, make statements about the intentions of tool-creators. It is not in doubt that the tool-creator commits no crime. It is also irrelevant, because the issue here is whether he can be considered ethically -- not legally -- innocent for (1) creating a tool that's expressly designed, i.e., intended, to commit a crime, (2) for the express purpose of selling the tool to (3) people who expressly intend to commit that crime.

You have no guaranteed right to privacy. It's a derived right, and a weak one at that. After all, oh I'm safe from something like SPAM [...] but I'm not safe from the government databases or FBI, CIA, NSA, wiretaps and survelliance.

Red herring. Are you really claiming that because we are not "safe" (your word) from the FBI, we should not be safe from spammers and spyware? These things are unrelated. You may as well say that there's no sense locking my car to keep the neighborhood kids out, because someday a professional thief might show up.

Besides which, bringing up privacy is putting words in my mouth, as I didn't say what right I was referring to. I do not consider spam an invasion of privacy. It is deceptive trespass, no different from a solicitor dressed as a postal carrier.

--
Dum de dum.

I would defend them, and you know why? They created my job...

Fallacy of appealing to consequences. Sorry, you can't defend something odious by pointing to one benefit among many unspoken ills. Would you then defend crime, saying that it creates many law-enforcement jobs? I have heard people do so.

...they are easy to overcome...

You also cannot defend something by appealing to scarcity of consequences. Mad cow disease afflicts extremely few people, which makes it a minor problem. But it does not cease to be a problem.

...and they simply do not [a]ffect the majority of bright individuals that use the net.

A good ISP is going to do egress filtering to prevent the first four items from having any impact (save adware, which may open popups). A good OS is not going to let the first four even get installed.

Prejudicial language. Anonymous authority. You are exonerating the perpetrator by blaming the victim. If only users had the right ISP and the right OS and enough brains, malware wouldn't be a problem! If only immigrants could speak English and get educated, they wouldn't be exploited! Clearly, such issues are not worth fixing.

Fake ATM theft is a scam, pure and simple. What you're saying is not to punish the people responsible for doing the actual crime, you're saying the creator of the ATM (or the card reader) is responsible. And that's ridiculous. The person that actually commits the crime has the intent, not the person that creates the tool.

Strawman. I made no statements about punishment. I made no statements about perpetrators' intentions. I did not even make any statements about tools. I did, however, make statements about the intentions of tool-creators. It is not in doubt that the tool-creator commits no crime. It is also irrelevant, because the issue here is whether he can be considered ethically -- not legally -- innocent for (1) creating a tool that's expressly designed, i.e., intended, to commit a crime, (2) for the express purpose of selling the tool to (3) people who expressly intend to commit that crime.

You have no guaranteed right to privacy. It's a derived right, and a weak one at that. After all, oh I'm safe from something like SPAM [...] but I'm not safe from the government databases or FBI, CIA, NSA, wiretaps and survelliance.

Red herring. Are you really claiming that because we are not "safe" (your word) from the FBI, we should not be safe from spammers and spyware? These things are unrelated. You may as well say that there's no sense locking my car to keep the neighborhood kids out, because someday a professional thief might show up.

Besides which, bringing up privacy is putting words in my mouth, as I didn't say what right I was referring to. I do not consider spam an invasion of privacy. It is deceptive trespass, no different from a solicitor dressed as a postal carrier.

--
Dum de dum.

I would defend them, and you know why? They created my job...

Fallacy of appealing to consequences. Sorry, you can't defend something odious by pointing to one benefit among many unspoken ills. Would you then defend crime, saying that it creates many law-enforcement jobs? I have heard people do so.

...they are easy to overcome...

You also cannot defend something by appealing to scarcity of consequences. Mad cow disease afflicts extremely few people, which makes it a minor problem. But it does not cease to be a problem.

...and they simply do not [a]ffect the majority of bright individuals that use the net.

A good ISP is going to do egress filtering to prevent the first four items from having any impact (save adware, which may open popups). A good OS is not going to let the first four even get installed.

Prejudicial language. Anonymous authority. You are exonerating the perpetrator by blaming the victim. If only users had the right ISP and the right OS and enough brains, malware wouldn't be a problem! If only immigrants could speak English and get educated, they wouldn't be exploited! Clearly, such issues are not worth fixing.

Fake ATM theft is a scam, pure and simple. What you're saying is not to punish the people responsible for doing the actual crime, you're saying the creator of the ATM (or the card reader) is responsible. And that's ridiculous. The person that actually commits the crime has the intent, not the person that creates the tool.

Strawman. I made no statements about punishment. I made no statements about perpetrators' intentions. I did not even make any statements about tools. I did, however, make statements about the intentions of tool-creators. It is not in doubt that the tool-creator commits no crime. It is also irrelevant, because the issue here is whether he can be considered ethically -- not legally -- innocent for (1) creating a tool that's expressly designed, i.e., intended, to commit a crime, (2) for the express purpose of selling the tool to (3) people who expressly intend to commit that crime.

You have no guaranteed right to privacy. It's a derived right, and a weak one at that. After all, oh I'm safe from something like SPAM [...] but I'm not safe from the government databases or FBI, CIA, NSA, wiretaps and survelliance.

Red herring. Are you really claiming that because we are not "safe" (your word) from the FBI, we should not be safe from spammers and spyware? These things are unrelated. You may as well say that there's no sense locking my car to keep the neighborhood kids out, because someday a professional thief might show up.

Besides which, bringing up privacy is putting words in my mouth, as I didn't say what right I was referring to. I do not consider spam an invasion of privacy. It is deceptive trespass, no different from a solicitor dressed as a postal carrier.

--
Dum de dum.

It is a slippery slope.

Slippery slope arguments are, by default, considered to be fallacious. By introducing your argument this way, you're effectively prefacing your comment with the statement "What I'm about to say is misleading and probably wrong".

Why would you do that?

Crumple zones are a safety feature - nothing more.

Crumple zones are a very profitable component of vehicle repairs. Ask a mechanic, or better yet, an insurance adjuster. That doesn't make them less of a safety feature, mind.

The mere fact that you don't recognize them ...

Recognizing them as a source of lucrative income does not preclude recognizing them as a safety feature, though in this case it brings their purpose and capacity into question. There was no statement to the effect that I didn't recognize them as a safety feature.

This is a false dilemma; it is not a question of "it's a safety feature or not", but rather "it's a safety feature" and "it was designed with economic incentives or not". With a very functional economic incentive, its capacity as a safety feature must be inherently called into question.

as such tells me that you are trying to push an agenda.

I can't imagine what agenda I would have aside from debuncting the myths of the safety of Smart Cars against the calamity of widespread slashdot ignorance, and drawing an interesting analogy with debuncting the myths of Linux and Windows. This is slashdot. What good would an agenda do here? Regardless, an agenda, an attack on the person, wouldn't debunk the statements.

The video is interesting, but doesn't really add to the debate of Smart Car safety. One accident is not sufficient to base an argument on vehicle safety. I am under the impression that far more road deaths happen from vehicle rollovers than T-bone crashes like the one in the video.

You should ask some physicists, or better yet engineers, about mass and its relation to vehicle safety. Mass is the antithesis of vehicle safety. (Note: Don't mistake size for mass.)

Crumple zones are a safety feature - nothing more.

Crumple zones are a very profitable component of vehicle repairs. Ask a mechanic, or better yet, an insurance adjuster. That doesn't make them less of a safety feature, mind.

The mere fact that you don't recognize them ...

Recognizing them as a source of lucrative income does not preclude recognizing them as a safety feature, though in this case it brings their purpose and capacity into question. There was no statement to the effect that I didn't recognize them as a safety feature.

This is a false dilemma; it is not a question of "it's a safety feature or not", but rather "it's a safety feature" and "it was designed with economic incentives or not". With a very functional economic incentive, its capacity as a safety feature must be inherently called into question.

as such tells me that you are trying to push an agenda.

I can't imagine what agenda I would have aside from debuncting the myths of the safety of Smart Cars against the calamity of widespread slashdot ignorance, and drawing an interesting analogy with debuncting the myths of Linux and Windows. This is slashdot. What good would an agenda do here? Regardless, an agenda, an attack on the person, wouldn't debunk the statements.

The video is interesting, but doesn't really add to the debate of Smart Car safety. One accident is not sufficient to base an argument on vehicle safety. I am under the impression that far more road deaths happen from vehicle rollovers than T-bone crashes like the one in the video.

You should ask some physicists, or better yet engineers, about mass and its relation to vehicle safety. Mass is the antithesis of vehicle safety. (Note: Don't mistake size for mass.)

Crumple zones are a safety feature - nothing more.

Crumple zones are a very profitable component of vehicle repairs. Ask a mechanic, or better yet, an insurance adjuster. That doesn't make them less of a safety feature, mind.

The mere fact that you don't recognize them ...

Recognizing them as a source of lucrative income does not preclude recognizing them as a safety feature, though in this case it brings their purpose and capacity into question. There was no statement to the effect that I didn't recognize them as a safety feature.

This is a false dilemma; it is not a question of "it's a safety feature or not", but rather "it's a safety feature" and "it was designed with economic incentives or not". With a very functional economic incentive, its capacity as a safety feature must be inherently called into question.

as such tells me that you are trying to push an agenda.

I can't imagine what agenda I would have aside from debuncting the myths of the safety of Smart Cars against the calamity of widespread slashdot ignorance, and drawing an interesting analogy with debuncting the myths of Linux and Windows. This is slashdot. What good would an agenda do here? Regardless, an agenda, an attack on the person, wouldn't debunk the statements.

The video is interesting, but doesn't really add to the debate of Smart Car safety. One accident is not sufficient to base an argument on vehicle safety. I am under the impression that far more road deaths happen from vehicle rollovers than T-bone crashes like the one in the video.

You should ask some physicists, or better yet engineers, about mass and its relation to vehicle safety. Mass is the antithesis of vehicle safety. (Note: Don't mistake size for mass.)

That does sound very convincing when you first read it, because the author is an excellent politician. But you should beware of people who use strawman arguments (the young man at the panel discussion) and unfounded ad hominem accusations (accusing the government of being infected by irrational environmentalists who want to destroy industry) in support of their case.

Anyway, here's a generic rebuttal to the ozone naysayers.

Any scientific issue, no matter how rooted in facts it is, always has naysayers. Even the round earth theory had considerable opposition. For someone to dispute accepted scientific theory requires extraordinary evidence, and frankly this james p. hogan doesn't provide much in the way of actual evidence.

Oh, and in general, paying attention to whether a text contains logical fallacies is very helpful too in weeding out truth from falsehood.

I wouldn't say the leaning is necessarily political, that would imply those who own the media actually care about anything but profit, and I see no evidence that's the case.

The media can legally lie, this has been the case for decades. So if you're a business, and your primary goal is to make profit, and it isn't always most profitable to tell the truth, and there's no financial harm in telling a lie, why not lie? Also, why try to do investigative journalism to find out the truth? If you do the hard research and find out the truth, you can get one story out of it, maybe two. If you don't do the research, you can report a new story every time someone involved in the story makes a comment about it. Perfect example of this: swift boat vets, with research you can validate or invalidate their claims, but no one in the mainstream media tried to do that because it would kill the story. So most news outlets tend to have stories biased in all directions, which is why the same news sources (CNN) get called biased to the right and biased to the left at the very same time. It's because they are biased in both directions, since their allegiance is not to politics, but to profitability.

The name of the game is drawing viewers to draw advertisers. In order to not scare away viewers, you can't tell them what they don't want to hear. What americans don't want to hear is that Iraq is a failed venture, so the failings in Iraq get downplayed and underreported. How often have you heard people complain the news is too negative, and how often have you heard them complain the news is too positive? People don't like to hear bad things about themselves or their country, so in order to keep them tuned to your station, you try to keep from telling them that. Also, advertisers. You can't take extreme positions, even if they're true, on issues because it will scare away advertisers. So the media tends to line stories in so much vagueness and he-said-she-said's that no advertiser can object to it, which doesn't exactly serve the truth either.

This is made worse by a republican message machine which is decades ahead of the democrat one. You have the conservative talk radio network, the white house which blocks access to reporters who ask the tough questions, the centralised talking points distribution network on the republican side, which dupes people into thinking a story has legitimacy because "everyone" is saying it, and on and on. This is why you can credibly argue a right wing bias in the media. It's not that the media sets out to be biased, it's that the republicans have tailored their PR to exploit the biases that are built into the media as it stands.

So, what to do about it? Number one is lots of media watchdog groups which inform the media of everything they report wrong from all sides of the political spectrum. That exists now. Number two is to bring back the illegality of lying in the press. No journalist in an official press capacity should ever be allowed to knowingly report a lie as fact. How to do this, I'm not exactly clear on. Maybe allowing people to sue for journalistic malpractice, like how you can sue your doctor for medical malpractice. But it still needs to be done. Number three is to get more variation in the media by bringing back reasonable ownership limits. I'm not advocating breaking up the media empires that exist, I'm just saying no one should be allowed to buy new outlets beyond a certain rather low marketshare, which over time will make the media market diversify again as media outlets get sold by the major media empires. And as long as I'm in fantasy land, number four would be to teach everyone a class on logic in high school, explaining what logical fallacies are, and how to recognize them, and explaining how to verify a claim you hear through logic, instead of through fallacy. But like I said, that would be fantasy land.

*shakes head* and so speaks yet another person with a sense of false authority. It's quite apparent that you have never really explored the viewpoints or scientific claims of the creationists, who do indeed have arguments that from a *pure* logical viewpoint have some level of credence. Your assumption is that because they believe in some things which are non-empiracally proveable concepts (such as God), that all of their beliefs or viewpoints/concepts are illogical or non-proveable using modern scientific knowledge, skills or practices - to which I say: grow up.

Of course, why am I suprised at the number of logical fallacies in slashdot comments? Silly me :P

riiight... lets not let facts get in the way here. I mean the earth was OBVIOUSLY created in 7 days! God put dino bones in the ground to fool non-believers!

A classic example of someone who's never really bothered to KNOW what the creationists claim - if you're going to try to argue against the validity of their claims, AT LEAST HAVE ENOUGH BRAINS TO DO SOME RESEARCH before you claim absolute knowledge on a subject. Stop regurgitating something that you once read in high school biology...

Dinosaur bones and other fossil evidences are probably one of the most easily explained phenomena, from the creationist point of view, as various types of fossils, sedimentary layers in the geological record etc (including different viewpoints on the various fossil dating methods) can theoretically be explained by the worldwide flood that the creationists believe in, using empirically collected data...

You don't have to take my word for it - try doing some research on your own (For instance, the AIG 's Q&A page I linked to earlier has a lot of interesting information).

If you're going to try and throw around the weight of your scientific acumen, at least don't bore us with childish and whimsical notions - have the decency back it up with some real information.

And, of course, for those who are interested in yet more alternative views, and more "fascinating information", here are some other nice links, as helpful as the above one:

http://www.flat-earth.org/ [flat-earth.org]

*grins* now we're getting somewhere :)

Consider the following assertions:

• Count Dracula is a Vampire
• Count Dracula lives in Transylvania
• Transylvania is a region of Romania
• Vampires are not real

You can draw only one non-clashing conclusion from such a set of assertions -- Romania isn't real.

• Count Dracula is not real
• Count Dracula lives in a region of Romania

• US citizens are people
• The First Amendment covers the rights of US citizens
• Nike is protected by the First Amendment

You could conclude from this that Nike is a person, and of course you would be right.

• the First Amendment covers the rights of people
• Nike is protected by the First Amendment

Yes, first of all, being Bruce is big.

You're being fallacious.

What astonishes me is that they do not teach LOGIC in public school. This is why the overwhelming majority of people feel right at home with informal logical fallacies. I would estimate that about 80 percent of all arguments I hear (friends, print, tv, etc.) contain at least a one informal logical fallacy. It drives me insane. Call me cynical, but if given a choice between a judge or jury trial, I would choose the judge every time. People always whine about how messed up our legal system is, but it is not the system, rather it is the jury's lack of basic reasoning skills.

So, this book somewhat makes sense. It is easy to control people who cannot reason themselves out of a cardbord box.

Really old, but I happened to be thinking of it earlier today - the Political Compass. Apparently I'm way off to the left, and down a bit.

The KKK (or groups like it) have been around in the United States for about one hundred years, I'd reckon that most people think what they say is extreme now and think it goes too far, but I still don't see any laws preventing them from saying what they say.

I hear the phrase 'slippery slope' on Slashdot alot, but it's a pathetic argument (being a logical fallacy). There are plenty of extremist groups which express their right to freedom of speech in the US, who are still allowed to say it even though what they say may be unethical.

You see this argued a lot here on /. as well, and it is such a stupid thing to say. It is a classic case of arguing using a False Analogy http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm

The way Linux is designed and the way Windows (especially with integrated IE) is designed are fundamentally different, and one (guess which) is by design more insecure.

*cough*bullshit*cough*

Once again, free gratis and on the house, just because a bad person believes in X doesn't make X false, or bad, or indeed anything. You're trotting out an inverted version of the argument from authority.

I'm not sure which comment you're referring to as tautology, but I have to assume that you're referring to the comment about amputating a growth. This may be tautological, but it's also referred to as a moral or a summary example. It's a common and effective form of rhetoric to first rebut a statement with a topical demonstration of an example that voids the original premis; then summarize the underlying principle in the scope of a much shorter example (presented as a truism) which demonstrates the principle itself on another topic. The overall effect being a demonstration that the original premis is wrong, and it's wrong in more than just the specific example presented; instead it's incorrect across a wide berth of similar situations.

However, rebutting my statement based on a tautology present in it is a logical fallacy known as Style Over Substance. You don't address the logic in the statements I made, rather you attack the manner in which they were delivered. Even if delivered poorly, their truth and applicability aren't affected.

Ultimately it remains that OS service packs serve a greater purpose than maintaining reverse compatibility: they fix bugs on the OS level (just as appliation service packs address bugs on the application level). If these bugs are being taken advantage of by an application and the application now breaks, that is still desirable behavior on the part of the OS service pack.

In this case the approach Microsoft took to many of the areas which they are fixing in this service pack was wrong initially. They incorrectly advised developers to use tools that have since been proven impossible to appropriately secure. It's very unfortunate that fixing these issues will kneecap many existing applications, but I for one am very glad Microsoft has decided to address the underlying issues despite the pain it'll cause.

His/her contention is that there is no studies which prove a link between violent TV and violent acts because you don't need that kind of information to make the argument.

[1] In the "course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood" sense, not the "A quarrel; a dispute" sense; anybody who has lived with a female[2] will attest that the latter does exist.
[2]Uh, this is slashdot, I know. I suppose mom in the house above the basement counts.

After all, most Linux softare is OSS, and most OSS developers actually use the software they're developing. So, the developers are the users.

Slippery slope argument

Definition of the logical fallacy slippery slope:

In order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P. A slippery slope is an illegitimate use of the "if-then" operator.

Some guy on slashdot:
"...the lion's share doesn't mean the majority. The lion's share is 100%...everything." [ and offers a literary quote proving his hypothesis ]

Some other guy on slashdot quotes assorted "official" sources, each of which has copied the other's mistakes, akin to what reporters commonly do today. C.f. argumentum ad verecundiam (in particular, a quick perusal of various encylopedia and literary sources clearly indicates that the experts, including the dictionaries you cite, are not in universal agreement on this point, so quoting a subset of experts that happen to agree with your opinion, while ignorning the rest, is a logical fallacy).

Having done a little digging on my own (google can be your friend, but a dictionary can be even better) it appears that "some guy on slashdot" got it right, while the various dictionaries you quote in fact copied not only each other's mistakes, but the mistakes as they have propogated into common parlence. As to the 'chicken-or-egg' question of whether the misuse first began among the semi-literate masses, or was spoon-fed to them by the semi-literate media and/or erroneous reference compendia, can only be left to speculation.

That's a slippery-slope argument. I'm not saying it won't happen but your conclusions don't follow logically from your premises. It's not inevitable that the RIAA/MPAA will go after Bram Cohen, although I wouldn't take bets on it if the law is passed.

How did this idiot get a karma bonus? He rarely says anything interesting, much less insightful, and now he's downright anti-Semitic.

This is a False Analogy. Palestinian terrorists target civilians, and the Israeli military does not.

I think the parent meant logical fallacies. Still, I wouldn't characterise them as unfair, just mistaken.

Anonymous Authorities a plenty. That's all I got to say 'bout that source.

I'm sorry, you conclusions do NOT follow from your premises. You have instead chosen an arbitrary standard that you happen to agree with and more or less declare this to be 'obvious' when it in fact is not.

There is an inductive fallacy for what you're trying to show. It's called a false analogy.

However, I think the grandparent was trying to make an implicit a fortiori argument; programs should be modularized and decentralized, and browsers, being ideallistically an HTML viewer/parser, a fortiori should show a modularity and deccentricity only exhibited in a stable, secure, and configurable program.

Alan Colmes may say he's a liberal, but if he is he makes the poorest arguments of any liberal I know. Try reading the real liberal arguments, and see how Colmes was selected specifically because he can't argue his way out of a wet paper bag.

It's a straw man argument. You attack your opponents not by attacking their actual strongest arguments, but by attacking their poorest arguments, or arguments they don't even make.

Occam's razor simply does not apply here.

The rational "thing to do" in this case is to disregard Plato's testimonial evidence of Atlantis. However, just because Plato isn't a reliable source on Atlantis does not mean Atlantis did not exist. That's just an appeal from ignorance, and is, as stated previously, fallacious.

There has been evidence of past civilizations that have been destroyed due to sublimatic activity. While this isn't proof of Atlantis, it does grant the conceivability of its existence, and thus, Occam's razor does not apply. There are other factors beyond simple second order evidence which are used when determining if it actually existed.

Just because it sounds OK to you doesn't mean it is OK. You see, that would involve the following series of propositions:

1) I am an expert at grammar.
2) The statement sounds correct to my grammar-expert ear.

3) Therefore, the statement must be correct.

The problem with such an argument is that it commits a logical fallacy known as the appeal to authority . You, sir, are not an authority on grammar (or, apparently, on logic).

Allow me to explain why the grandparent poster is correct.

"Were" is the third-person plural past tense of the verb "to be," (PDF file) which implies an action began in the past and concluded fairly shortly thereafter. In other words, the action was brief and did not extend over a long period of time. In the United States legal system, a person "stands accused" of a crime or civil liability for the period beginning with the indictment/arraignment/serving of papers/etc. until the jury returns a verdict, the judge hands down a decision, etc. (barring any appeal).

This necessitates the use of the perfect tense (action began in the past and continues in the present) or the present tense (action occurring now). The perfect tense (what I would have preferred, actually) is "They have been accused...," while the present tense is what the grandparent poster used.

I should also point out that if the accused had been killed before the story went to press -- an example that you invented out of thin air, by the way -- then past tense is still wrong, and you should have used past perfect tense instead: "They had been accused of spamming."

Of course, we could have avoided this entire debate if the AP story writer and the copy-editor in charge of looking over the story had used more proper terminology and said "They stand accused..." in the first place. (Yes, the original error comes from TFA, which I R.)

p

Just because it sounds OK to you doesn't mean it is OK. You see, that would involve the following series of propositions:

1) I am an expert at grammar.
2) The statement sounds correct to my grammar-expert ear.

3) Therefore, the statement must be correct.

The problem with such an argument is that it commits a logical fallacy known as the appeal to authority . You, sir, are not an authority on grammar (or, apparently, on logic).

Allow me to explain why the grandparent poster is correct.

"Were" is the third-person plural past tense of the verb "to be," (PDF file) which implies an action began in the past and concluded fairly shortly thereafter. In other words, the action was brief and did not extend over a long period of time. In the United States legal system, a person "stands accused" of a crime or civil liability for the period beginning with the indictment/arraignment/serving of papers/etc. until the jury returns a verdict, the judge hands down a decision, etc. (barring any appeal).

This necessitates the use of the perfect tense (action began in the past and continues in the present) or the present tense (action occurring now). The perfect tense (what I would have preferred, actually) is "They have been accused...," while the present tense is what the grandparent poster used.

I should also point out that if the accused had been killed before the story went to press -- an example that you invented out of thin air, by the way -- then past tense is still wrong, and you should have used past perfect tense instead: "They had been accused of spamming."

Of course, we could have avoided this entire debate if the AP story writer and the copy-editor in charge of looking over the story had used more proper terminology and said "They stand accused..." in the first place. (Yes, the original error comes from TFA, which I R.)

p

There's two ways to look at such a situation.

...is it because Microsoft forces garbage software down our throats and still gets 80% returns on it because of their monopoly position?

Okay, that's an amusing list of arguments, many of which are actually made by some of the kids online. I get the feeling that your intention is to suggest that these are the only arguments for widespread distribution (a straw man argument), but *shrug*, maybe I'm just misinterpreting. However, one of the arguments you're mocking isn't quite as obviously wrong as you suggest.

(1) I don't personally believe in copying CDs illegally-- but I think we should avoid using unkind words like "piracy" to describe those that do -- instead, we should describe it as an "infringement", much like a parking infringement.

I've never heard of a parking infringement, but I suppose. I do hear "illegally parked" or "parking violation" (which was what my last parking ticket read). Those are perfectly reasonable terms, after all, one is illegally parked and one has violated parking laws. I'm perfectly fine with copyright violation or illegal copying. Both are accurate descriptions of the crime. Copyright infringment is arguably more accurate (since you're infringing on exclusivity granted to someone else), but violation or illegal is certainly nice and accurate.

Piracy, on the other hand, isn't terribly accurate. Piracy's has multiple definitions and those different definitions are governed by different laws and punishments. Many people (myself included) feel that we need to reconsider our intellectual property laws, that perhaps they've become unbalanced and no longer serve the common good. It's important to have accurate language in such a discussion; colorful terms and phrases like piracy cloud the issue. Those people and businesses interested in maximizing the power of copyright deliberately chose words like piracy and theft because they know they have emotion impact, it's easier to get people to agree with ideas like "theft is wrong" without having them consider the details of what they are agreeing too. If they used words and phrases like illegal copying they know that some people will step back and ask, "why is the illegal? What is the real harm?" This sort of misdirection is unnecessary. I certainly believe that copyright law is a good thing. I would be against abolishing copyright law or eliminating enforcement. However I arrived at those conclusions through reason and the facts, not through emotional arguments and colorful phrases. Shoplifting a CD is a very different action from downloading an illegal copy online, trying to confuse the two is a false analogy. If copyright really is right why not defend it without descending into logical fallacies?

Okay, that's an amusing list of arguments, many of which are actually made by some of the kids online. I get the feeling that your intention is to suggest that these are the only arguments for widespread distribution (a straw man argument), but *shrug*, maybe I'm just misinterpreting. However, one of the arguments you're mocking isn't quite as obviously wrong as you suggest.

(1) I don't personally believe in copying CDs illegally-- but I think we should avoid using unkind words like "piracy" to describe those that do -- instead, we should describe it as an "infringement", much like a parking infringement.

I've never heard of a parking infringement, but I suppose. I do hear "illegally parked" or "parking violation" (which was what my last parking ticket read). Those are perfectly reasonable terms, after all, one is illegally parked and one has violated parking laws. I'm perfectly fine with copyright violation or illegal copying. Both are accurate descriptions of the crime. Copyright infringment is arguably more accurate (since you're infringing on exclusivity granted to someone else), but violation or illegal is certainly nice and accurate.

Piracy, on the other hand, isn't terribly accurate. Piracy's has multiple definitions and those different definitions are governed by different laws and punishments. Many people (myself included) feel that we need to reconsider our intellectual property laws, that perhaps they've become unbalanced and no longer serve the common good. It's important to have accurate language in such a discussion; colorful terms and phrases like piracy cloud the issue. Those people and businesses interested in maximizing the power of copyright deliberately chose words like piracy and theft because they know they have emotion impact, it's easier to get people to agree with ideas like "theft is wrong" without having them consider the details of what they are agreeing too. If they used words and phrases like illegal copying they know that some people will step back and ask, "why is the illegal? What is the real harm?" This sort of misdirection is unnecessary. I certainly believe that copyright law is a good thing. I would be against abolishing copyright law or eliminating enforcement. However I arrived at those conclusions through reason and the facts, not through emotional arguments and colorful phrases. Shoplifting a CD is a very different action from downloading an illegal copy online, trying to confuse the two is a false analogy. If copyright really is right why not defend it without descending into logical fallacies?

Okay, that's an amusing list of arguments, many of which are actually made by some of the kids online. I get the feeling that your intention is to suggest that these are the only arguments for widespread distribution (a straw man argument), but *shrug*, maybe I'm just misinterpreting. However, one of the arguments you're mocking isn't quite as obviously wrong as you suggest.

(1) I don't personally believe in copying CDs illegally-- but I think we should avoid using unkind words like "piracy" to describe those that do -- instead, we should describe it as an "infringement", much like a parking infringement.

I've never heard of a parking infringement, but I suppose. I do hear "illegally parked" or "parking violation" (which was what my last parking ticket read). Those are perfectly reasonable terms, after all, one is illegally parked and one has violated parking laws. I'm perfectly fine with copyright violation or illegal copying. Both are accurate descriptions of the crime. Copyright infringment is arguably more accurate (since you're infringing on exclusivity granted to someone else), but violation or illegal is certainly nice and accurate.

Piracy, on the other hand, isn't terribly accurate. Piracy's has multiple definitions and those different definitions are governed by different laws and punishments. Many people (myself included) feel that we need to reconsider our intellectual property laws, that perhaps they've become unbalanced and no longer serve the common good. It's important to have accurate language in such a discussion; colorful terms and phrases like piracy cloud the issue. Those people and businesses interested in maximizing the power of copyright deliberately chose words like piracy and theft because they know they have emotion impact, it's easier to get people to agree with ideas like "theft is wrong" without having them consider the details of what they are agreeing too. If they used words and phrases like illegal copying they know that some people will step back and ask, "why is the illegal? What is the real harm?" This sort of misdirection is unnecessary. I certainly believe that copyright law is a good thing. I would be against abolishing copyright law or eliminating enforcement. However I arrived at those conclusions through reason and the facts, not through emotional arguments and colorful phrases. Shoplifting a CD is a very different action from downloading an illegal copy online, trying to confuse the two is a false analogy. If copyright really is right why not defend it without descending into logical fallacies?

> Please, quit trying to say everyone who doesn't agree with you(Israel) is anti-semetic

Kind of like everyone who disagrees with Bush is unpatriotic at best, a terrorist at worst.

Someone help me out here, this seems like False Dilemma, either you agree or you are [anti-semite, unpatriotic, etc], though there are many 3rd choices.
But it also fits Prejudicial Language pretty closely.
What about Undistributed Middle, Some anti-semites disagree with Israeli policy, the Jews of Israel do not disagree, so if you disagree you must be anti-semite.

Is there more than one way to look at this fallacy?

Are we ever going to start drilling these into our children so they don't get led around by the nose so much?

> Please, quit trying to say everyone who doesn't agree with you(Israel) is anti-semetic

Kind of like everyone who disagrees with Bush is unpatriotic at best, a terrorist at worst.

Someone help me out here, this seems like False Dilemma, either you agree or you are [anti-semite, unpatriotic, etc], though there are many 3rd choices.
But it also fits Prejudicial Language pretty closely.
What about Undistributed Middle, Some anti-semites disagree with Israeli policy, the Jews of Israel do not disagree, so if you disagree you must be anti-semite.

Is there more than one way to look at this fallacy?

Are we ever going to start drilling these into our children so they don't get led around by the nose so much?

> Please, quit trying to say everyone who doesn't agree with you(Israel) is anti-semetic

Kind of like everyone who disagrees with Bush is unpatriotic at best, a terrorist at worst.

Someone help me out here, this seems like False Dilemma, either you agree or you are [anti-semite, unpatriotic, etc], though there are many 3rd choices.
But it also fits Prejudicial Language pretty closely.
What about Undistributed Middle, Some anti-semites disagree with Israeli policy, the Jews of Israel do not disagree, so if you disagree you must be anti-semite.

Is there more than one way to look at this fallacy?

Are we ever going to start drilling these into our children so they don't get led around by the nose so much?

> Are they defending human rights, or simply trying
> to impose their own beliefs on people from other
> cultures?

Both. BTW - to Impose or to Persuade and convince? See Fallacy of Prejudicial Language

Oh, the slope! Its soooooooooooooooo slippery. Slip slip slip. Slippery slip! Slip down down. Or "they" could just keep spying on non-Americans like "they" have always done. Whatever.