Slashdot Mirror

Not surprisingly, you've misused this fallacy. But let's go with that, shall we?

From your linked site:

Proof:
Identify the options given and show (with an example) that there is an additional option.

So what is your additional option? By the way, I think the page you really need to read is this one

Well, you're either too stupid to understand the arguments with respect to IP infringment versus theft, or you're a troll.

That's called a False Dilemma. If you are going to refute me, could you at least try to stick to the fundamental rules of logic? Amateurs.

>>compare their claim to those involving Harry Potter rip-offs and Vanilla Ice versus David Bowie and Queen.

>This means nothing to me.... who wants to enlighten me and karma whore?

Well, it's called false analogy.

Please do it now before these two turn the U.S. citizens into entertainment industry criminals and slaves...

This statement exposes your fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. Even if I accept the notion that "stealing" music would make me a "criminal" and buying music makes me a "slave" (riiiiiiiiiiiiiight, like buying food makes me a slave to farmers), there is still option #3 - be neither. Don't listen to any of it at all. Make your own. You won't die if you don't hear the newest Metallica song. If their business model is truly obsolete, let it die. Don't consume their product for free or for fee. The fact that people still do both only goes to prove them still viable.

For your personal reference:
False Dilemma

...or is this storying suffering from a classic logical fallacy?

I mean, I don't believe the RIAA either when they say that file sharing is the reason sales are down. But then again, I thought most slashdotters felt the same way. Why is the RIAA (rightfully) chastised for false cause in that argument, yet slashdot publishes a story with the same logical error and people lap it up?

Simply because filesharing is out there now, and record sales are up in Australia, doesn't mean filesharing caused the increase. What will they say a year from now, if sales suddenly slump? Certainly not "filesharing killed Australian music sales".

Because you're really good at committing the logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent."

p

I have lived in three of those countries for long periods of time and those rankings in no way resemble the realities which you discern only when fully immersed in the cultures.

Most anthropologists I have met, are left in the dust by multinational, multicultured, multilingual individuals who don't even call themselves anthropologists.

Maybe the problem is, that you have a predetermined cultural notion of how the countries should rank. And you are ranking countries based on subjective categories concieved fully immersed in a particular cultural environment. Almost like begging the question.
But what the hell do I know. I'm posting to slashdot and don't have the time or energy to RTFA.

Appeal to Authority:

(1) the authority is not an expert in the field

(2) experts in the field disagree

(3) the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious

Proof:

Show that either (i) the person cited is not an authority in the field, or that (ii) there is general disagreement among the experts in the field on this point.

The Cato Institute thinks the following:

"The large majority of America's nonfarm workers, about 85 percent, are employed in service-providing industries, construction, and government--sectors where import competition is minimal. To those workers, imports are an unambiguous blessing that spurs innovation, expands consumer choice, and raises real wages." Full Paper Here

Moreover, this breifing goes on to argue employment grows in proportion to imports . There's a fairly rational reason for this, if we can all stop foaming at the mouth long enough to actually think rationally: when employment grows we (consumers) have more cash to spend on goods and services. Since imports are a relatively fixed percentage of the overall economy, whenever the overall economy grows, so must imports. Why am I discussing imports if the argument is over services? Well, services are imported and exported just like goods. So, let's understand the real numbers, here:

The United States had a $64.8 billion trade (BEG ITAL) surplus in services in 2002, despite economic stagnation in Europe and Japan. Services accounted for 30 percent of all U.S. exports and 43 percent ($3.1 billion) of U.S. exports to India. Full Article Here

But, if half of our exports to India are in the form of services why are so many technical jobs going to India? Actually, there's no real evidence that's happening at all. There are two basic erroneous arguments made by the media today supporting the assumptions in this question. First, is the post hoc mistake: because the US economy is losing jobs and because after that happened India started gaining technology jobs, then India must be responsible for losses in American technology jobs. Actually, poor investments by venture capitalists and fund managers caused the loss in US jobs. The fact those losses occured coincidentally with India's technology boom is completely irrelevant.

Second, is the hasty generalization mistake: Bob Smith has just lost his job because his company opened a software development office in India, therefore all American technology jobs must be moving overseas. There just isn't enough evidence to support the generalization made by reporters. We may suspect that India is taking some portion of American jobs, but news reports by well-intentioned NPR and New York Times reporters aren't evidence that its hurting our economy.

All this panic and paranoia about jobs moving overseas doesn't even make sense when we consider the real economics of it. The "entire employment of the US" can't possibly be outsourced. Even if your argument wasn't a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy, you'd still be wrong on an economic basis. If the USA loses a sufficient number of jobs, i.e. unemployment rises, the consumers will have less capital with which to buy foreign-made products. Domestic workers who are out of work will be willing to work for less, thus driving down the cost of locally made goods. When the cost of local goods and services drops below the cost of foreign made goods and services, then jobs will start to flow back into the USA. Adam Smith's invisible hand at work.

During the Clinton Administration monetary policy for the dollar kept our currency strong, which helped keep prices for foreign made consumer goods low. This was a good thing during that time because Asia and Europe were both in the midst of deep recessions and American consumer spending helped to bolster those economies through that trying time. The Bush Administration has since let the US Dollar sag in relation to other currencies. This has helped decrease the price of American goods and services abroad

The Cato Institute thinks the following:

"The large majority of America's nonfarm workers, about 85 percent, are employed in service-providing industries, construction, and government--sectors where import competition is minimal. To those workers, imports are an unambiguous blessing that spurs innovation, expands consumer choice, and raises real wages." Full Paper Here

Moreover, this breifing goes on to argue employment grows in proportion to imports . There's a fairly rational reason for this, if we can all stop foaming at the mouth long enough to actually think rationally: when employment grows we (consumers) have more cash to spend on goods and services. Since imports are a relatively fixed percentage of the overall economy, whenever the overall economy grows, so must imports. Why am I discussing imports if the argument is over services? Well, services are imported and exported just like goods. So, let's understand the real numbers, here:

The United States had a $64.8 billion trade (BEG ITAL) surplus in services in 2002, despite economic stagnation in Europe and Japan. Services accounted for 30 percent of all U.S. exports and 43 percent ($3.1 billion) of U.S. exports to India. Full Article Here

But, if half of our exports to India are in the form of services why are so many technical jobs going to India? Actually, there's no real evidence that's happening at all. There are two basic erroneous arguments made by the media today supporting the assumptions in this question. First, is the post hoc mistake: because the US economy is losing jobs and because after that happened India started gaining technology jobs, then India must be responsible for losses in American technology jobs. Actually, poor investments by venture capitalists and fund managers caused the loss in US jobs. The fact those losses occured coincidentally with India's technology boom is completely irrelevant.

Second, is the hasty generalization mistake: Bob Smith has just lost his job because his company opened a software development office in India, therefore all American technology jobs must be moving overseas. There just isn't enough evidence to support the generalization made by reporters. We may suspect that India is taking some portion of American jobs, but news reports by well-intentioned NPR and New York Times reporters aren't evidence that its hurting our economy.

All this panic and paranoia about jobs moving overseas doesn't even make sense when we consider the real economics of it. The "entire employment of the US" can't possibly be outsourced. Even if your argument wasn't a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy, you'd still be wrong on an economic basis. If the USA loses a sufficient number of jobs, i.e. unemployment rises, the consumers will have less capital with which to buy foreign-made products. Domestic workers who are out of work will be willing to work for less, thus driving down the cost of locally made goods. When the cost of local goods and services drops below the cost of foreign made goods and services, then jobs will start to flow back into the USA. Adam Smith's invisible hand at work.

During the Clinton Administration monetary policy for the dollar kept our currency strong, which helped keep prices for foreign made consumer goods low. This was a good thing during that time because Asia and Europe were both in the midst of deep recessions and American consumer spending helped to bolster those economies through that trying time. The Bush Administration has since let the US Dollar sag in relation to other currencies. This has helped decrease the price of American goods and services abroad

The Cato Institute thinks the following:

"The large majority of America's nonfarm workers, about 85 percent, are employed in service-providing industries, construction, and government--sectors where import competition is minimal. To those workers, imports are an unambiguous blessing that spurs innovation, expands consumer choice, and raises real wages." Full Paper Here

Moreover, this breifing goes on to argue employment grows in proportion to imports . There's a fairly rational reason for this, if we can all stop foaming at the mouth long enough to actually think rationally: when employment grows we (consumers) have more cash to spend on goods and services. Since imports are a relatively fixed percentage of the overall economy, whenever the overall economy grows, so must imports. Why am I discussing imports if the argument is over services? Well, services are imported and exported just like goods. So, let's understand the real numbers, here:

The United States had a $64.8 billion trade (BEG ITAL) surplus in services in 2002, despite economic stagnation in Europe and Japan. Services accounted for 30 percent of all U.S. exports and 43 percent ($3.1 billion) of U.S. exports to India. Full Article Here

But, if half of our exports to India are in the form of services why are so many technical jobs going to India? Actually, there's no real evidence that's happening at all. There are two basic erroneous arguments made by the media today supporting the assumptions in this question. First, is the post hoc mistake: because the US economy is losing jobs and because after that happened India started gaining technology jobs, then India must be responsible for losses in American technology jobs. Actually, poor investments by venture capitalists and fund managers caused the loss in US jobs. The fact those losses occured coincidentally with India's technology boom is completely irrelevant.

Second, is the hasty generalization mistake: Bob Smith has just lost his job because his company opened a software development office in India, therefore all American technology jobs must be moving overseas. There just isn't enough evidence to support the generalization made by reporters. We may suspect that India is taking some portion of American jobs, but news reports by well-intentioned NPR and New York Times reporters aren't evidence that its hurting our economy.

All this panic and paranoia about jobs moving overseas doesn't even make sense when we consider the real economics of it. The "entire employment of the US" can't possibly be outsourced. Even if your argument wasn't a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy, you'd still be wrong on an economic basis. If the USA loses a sufficient number of jobs, i.e. unemployment rises, the consumers will have less capital with which to buy foreign-made products. Domestic workers who are out of work will be willing to work for less, thus driving down the cost of locally made goods. When the cost of local goods and services drops below the cost of foreign made goods and services, then jobs will start to flow back into the USA. Adam Smith's invisible hand at work.

During the Clinton Administration monetary policy for the dollar kept our currency strong, which helped keep prices for foreign made consumer goods low. This was a good thing during that time because Asia and Europe were both in the midst of deep recessions and American consumer spending helped to bolster those economies through that trying time. The Bush Administration has since let the US Dollar sag in relation to other currencies. This has helped decrease the price of American goods and services abroad

At best, the notion that patches are the source of all exploits is a logical fallacy. However, I'm sure I'd not be in the minority of /. readers if I opined that Mr. Aucsmith is either lying outright or simply delusional.

I say that since Microsoft has a policy of "eating their own dog food", they should be forced to stand by this ridiculous proclamation and henceforth cease and desist all efforts to patch their code. Thus, all exploitations of buggy MS code will also halt.

Quoting someone as stating that their problem started with an obsession with pornography is equally fallacious--why should we trust their self diagnosis? Should we not recognize this simply as when the individual first became aware of their problem? If we take into account the subconscious, the reasoning should become immediately clear.

I agree the problem is education, and most importantly a lacking in formal logic teaching. People should be taught in school to recognise a bullshit argument in a formal way. Instead, most people are vulnerable to the simplest of logical fallacies, like the straw man argument.

Good call. I suppose I should have written, "Well, it's an ad hominem argument, but... you know. The good kind."

I wonder if that means I'm guilty of an entirely different logical fallacy.

I want to shit down your throat. we don't always get what we want. Just accept that and move on.

Doesn't make the strong point that religious folk are the problem. Please tell me what happened to you.

After being introduced to people. quite early in my life as I recall.

That would be the fallacy of unrepresentative sample. Hey, weren't you the one cheering the notion of balance? I seem to be the one that understands what that means.

Is there anything I can do to help?

Interesting, when did you become so hateful?

people who are religious are either brought up that way from early childhood, or they have reached some desperate point in their lives and need something to hold on to.

This is a logical fallacy known as false dilemma. You have intentionally presented only 2 choices when in fact there are 3 or more. I thought you liked keeping things balanced?

Notice also how I remain reasonable and don't get mad. Why did you get mad spir0? Lets get to the root of the issue. What has filled you with this hate and prejudice?

As for your silly PS PS - I'm sorry that whatever religion you were exposed to purported to be presented in a balanced way, but don't let that prejudice your infantile mind. I don't think I ever indicated I was brought up in religion (I wasn't) or that I subscribe to any (I do), but I have been exposed and exposed myself to a variety of teachings and disciplines, secular and religious, and as you can see from our contrasting tones, am the better person for it. Also none of what I believe prevents me from believing in myself. Its becomeing increasingly clear you are speaking out of ignorance.

What has brought on this hate spir0? Who hurt you? I want to help.

1) I should believe in God because the Bible says so, and the Bible can't be wrong because it is the literal word of God.

Sorry, but that's a classical logical fallacy called begging the question. Basically, we can stop right here, because this simple fact renders all subsequent arguments moot; any further discussion is nothing more than mental masturbation -- enjoyable, but ultimately unproductive. Show me proof that the Christian Bible is the Word of God which isn't based on logical fallacies , and you'll have a willing convert. I'll even spot you one by stipulating that there is a supreme being (which is itself an unprovable assumption).

2) If I can't resolve the seemingly-obvious contridictions, it's because I'm too stupid or lazy to understand the explanations used to dismiss them.

Sorry, but that's another logical fallacy called an ad hominim attack. 3) Besides, there really aren't any contridictions because a bunch of very smart guys read the Ancient Greek and Hebrew versions and figured out what they really meant to say, instead of what they actually did say.

Yet another logical fallacy: appeal to authority.

4) The verses aren't contridictory because this word over used here doesn't mean the same thing as it does when it's used over there.

Equivocation is also a logical fallacy.

5) These are not the contridictions you are looking for. Move along.

Sorry, the Jedi Mind Trick don't work on me. The fallacy of exclusion doesn't work either.

8) If you don't believe as we believe, you will suffer eternal damnnation.

Wow! Three logical fallacies for the price of one: appeal to concequences, appeal to popularity, and untestability.

The slippery slope, eh? That sure is, (sarcasm), valid reasoning.

Or in other words, you fucking failed it.

A person can maintain free will by being imprisoned: Conflicting Conditions

If money exchanges hands in conjunction with game, then that game is a violent means of resolving conflict. Too Broad

A person can maintain free will by being imprisoned: Conflicting Conditions

If money exchanges hands in conjunction with game, then that game is a violent means of resolving conflict. Too Broad

A person can maintain free will by being imprisoned: Conflicting Conditions

If money exchanges hands in conjunction with game, then that game is a violent means of resolving conflict. Too Broad

Can you come up with one example where the U.S. was not retaliating? Probably not.

i know this is slashdot and our standards of evidence/logic are pretty low, but....

there is nothing approaching a persuasive argument here. your first sentence uses an irrelevant conclusion and an ad hominem attack on White Christian Americans and US president bush, and the last three sentences are a straw man.

if you'd care to reformulate your response, i promise to give you a cohesive answer.

jon

i know this is slashdot and our standards of evidence/logic are pretty low, but....

there is nothing approaching a persuasive argument here. your first sentence uses an irrelevant conclusion and an ad hominem attack on White Christian Americans and US president bush, and the last three sentences are a straw man.

if you'd care to reformulate your response, i promise to give you a cohesive answer.

jon

i know this is slashdot and our standards of evidence/logic are pretty low, but....

there is nothing approaching a persuasive argument here. your first sentence uses an irrelevant conclusion and an ad hominem attack on White Christian Americans and US president bush, and the last three sentences are a straw man.

if you'd care to reformulate your response, i promise to give you a cohesive answer.

jon

"post hoc, ergo propter hoc" - or something of that nature.

It MEANS that just because something happened after something else, the prior act did not cause the latter one.

A better explanation found here.

Whereas your entire premise is based on the fallacy of overprecision.

For reference, this is the fallacy of overprecision (I couldn't find it on most of the general lists of fallacies on the Web, but a direct Google search turned it up):

Overprecision: rejecting a concept as unusable because it has borderline cases or because the definition, phrasing, syntax, grammar, or structure of the proposition or argument is not perfect.

Note that the fallacy refers to rejecting entire CONCEPTS, not arguments; for instance, "we can't agree on whether this is theft; therefore, the concept of theft should be discarded."

We all know that it's theft.

On the other hand, this is a classic example of argumentum ad populum , also known as "appeal to popularity". For instance,

"Everyone knows that the Earth is flat, so why do you persist in your outlandish claims?".

You simply don't like the word because you can't hide from what it says about what you are doing, so you sanitize it away until you are comfortable.

Whereas this is the fallacy of ad hominem , or "attacking the person". This particular form is known as "poisoning the well"; for instance,

"Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."

-- Daniel "Logic Cop"

Whereas your entire premise is based on the fallacy of overprecision.

For reference, this is the fallacy of overprecision (I couldn't find it on most of the general lists of fallacies on the Web, but a direct Google search turned it up):

Overprecision: rejecting a concept as unusable because it has borderline cases or because the definition, phrasing, syntax, grammar, or structure of the proposition or argument is not perfect.

Note that the fallacy refers to rejecting entire CONCEPTS, not arguments; for instance, "we can't agree on whether this is theft; therefore, the concept of theft should be discarded."

We all know that it's theft.

On the other hand, this is a classic example of argumentum ad populum , also known as "appeal to popularity". For instance,

"Everyone knows that the Earth is flat, so why do you persist in your outlandish claims?".

You simply don't like the word because you can't hide from what it says about what you are doing, so you sanitize it away until you are comfortable.

Whereas this is the fallacy of ad hominem , or "attacking the person". This particular form is known as "poisoning the well"; for instance,

"Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."

-- Daniel "Logic Cop"

You can ignore anything the UN says on human rights, given that it has appointed these countries [Libya and Syria] to monitor others.

That's a personal attack and not a logical argument.

You know, ever few years there is a big public scandel and we discover that some local police department has corrupt officers. Common sense suggests that there remain corrupt officers throughout the country. Do we dismiss out of hand the statements of the law enforcement community as a result? The same goes for, say, your elected officials. There have been and likely will continue to be dirty politicians; do I dismiss the statements of the US Congress out of hand?

There are 53 member countries in the commission. Might any of Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Poland, the United Kingdom, or even the United States have had a say? Are you implying that a majority of the member states are corrupt and actually condone human rights violations?

Christ, Microsoft's security servers have never been r00ted

I cannot find anything in my post that would in any way indicate that I think deforestation is not an issue. How did you derive that from my post? You may be referring to my assertion that "I am on the fence in regards to the human influence on global climate change" but alas deforestation is not global climate change.

You did not really attack the poster other than to suggest that he is a troll. What I was referring to was the attack on the author of the article. While, slashdot is rather informal, the basic premises of logic still apply. The validity of an arguement in no way is influenced or bolstered by the motives or objectivity of the person making the arguement. A good arguement will stand on the merit of arguement alone. I have not read the paper so I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the merit of his arguement.

Please refer to Logical Fallicies for a complete list of these fallacies.

"Microsoft users are getting fed up. They're battered by worms, viruses, security patches and increasing enterprise licensing costs. Aggravation has users talking about switching from Microsoft software to something else. We're trying to figure out how much of that talk is just talk, and how much is serious action. Do you seriously plan to dump Microsoft software?"

You might as well ask, "Wal-Mart customers are fed up, since Wal-Mart employees kick puppies and laugh at old people. Are you planning to stop shopping at Wal-Mart?"

"Microsoft users are getting fed up. They're battered by worms, viruses, security patches and increasing enterprise licensing costs. Aggravation has users talking about switching from Microsoft software to something else. We're trying to figure out how much of that talk is just talk, and how much is serious action. Do you seriously plan to dump Microsoft software?"

You might as well ask, "Wal-Mart customers are fed up, since Wal-Mart employees kick puppies and laugh at old people. Are you planning to stop shopping at Wal-Mart?"

Yes, I was hoping someone would point this out. Formal term, Post Hoc.

The article states as fact that since the two events (use of electronic device, equipment malfunction) occur at the same time, one necessarily causes the other. Is there real proof of this, or is this just irresponsible reporting?

This letter is a thinly guised attempt to misrepresent the facts and send a message to companies considering open source. The message reads something like: "We're right...and we're so confident we're right, we're going to talk down to the open source community, patronize them a bit, and then offer to work with them to *help* them out of their jam. We're so nice and right and honest, you have to trust us and feel sorry for the way we've been abused."

Too bad we can't tack this on to the beginning of the open letter....it'd make things a bit clearer for the average reader:

They say that it is better to be quiet, and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. You should remember that.

That's the theory anyways. If dynamic compilation is so great, why aren't there any decent dynamic recompilers?

There aren't for x86. x86 is a difficult architecture to recompile in place. But for PA-RISC, check out Dynamo.

It is true that performance gains are usually not huge for same-architecture recompilation, which limits what you can do to not-very complex things. But many times you can get profile-based, global-optimization compiler performance without compiling your application using profile or global optimization.

Hint: try doing precise exceptions.

Precise exceptios is a function of the architecture, not of the translator or translated code. The hard part is expecting a debugger to work. If you reorder stuff your state will be inconsistent with the real program at different points, and so your debugger won't be compatable with the old code.

What about self-modifying code (oh yes, it's out there - esp. in java and other managed run time apps).

These are usually tricky for dynamic recompilation. Though Java is one of the examples where dynamic recompilation is extremely effective. JIT performance is actually pretty good.

Also, why doesn't Transmeta get performance that is comparable to a similarly powered out of order machine like Banias?

I think this might be subverted support. Current Transmeta chips are very substantially smaller and at least a generaton back in process. And it certainly doesn't make the case that VLIW

Why does IA64 suck? Couldn't a dynamic recompiler help it out?

IA64 is a relatively poor performer for a variety of reasons, but if you take a bit of time and have a really great compiler, you can get your performance out of it. That being said, VLIW architectures are harder to dynamically recompile because many times they have parallel semantics which are harder to brake up and mess with.

There's too much overhead with a software based dynamic recompiler.

Well, it depends on what you do. You want to embed GCC and run it with -O4? Yeah, that's too much overhead. You want to align blocks and do a little bit of optimization over block boundaries? That's much more reasonable. And it's also the kind of optimization that you will get more benefit from, because the compiler is going to do a pretty good job scheduling straight code.

Things like instruction scheduling change far too quickly for dynamic software methods to be effective.

Instruction scheduling isn't so bad. You know the latencies for instrucitons, you can schedule them. Compilers usually do a pretty good job of scheduling in straight code.

What compilers can't do is optimize something like this:

double angle = PI/4;
for (i = 0; i < info.len; i++) {

info.arr[i] *= sin(angle);

}

Assuming sin() is in some library somewhere, the compiler can't optimize that constant away. What if it were "double sin(double x) {static int i=0; return ++i;}"? The dynamic translator can see the bigger picture, and has the potential to take the computation out of the loop.

Using a trace cache, the hardware can "dynamically recompile" code for you at much reduced latency.

It can keep the translated copy. It can even basic block reorder. But it can't do the somewhat-complex things that a translator can do.

I think that you expect too much from your architecture. But if you are thinking that given infinite resources, both an out-of-order machine and a VLIW will get similar performance, you're probably close to correct. But I think you are missing a big point -- everything i

The 2001 Census data has information on Houses, Household Amenities and Assets in India and has very interesting findings. It seems there are some 2.4 million places of worship in the country, as against 1.5 million schools and colleges and a mere 600,000 hospitals and dispensaries. No wonder there is so much unnecessary religious strife.

No, we never had riots as far as anyone can remember.

Before you read the 2001 Census Report, or that shiny worthless rag, India Today, may I point out to a more useful site on logical fallacies? In particular, you'll note the similarity between your implied reasoning ("India has more religious structures than schools or hospitals. It also has a lot of religious strife. Therefore, the large number of religious structures causes strife.") and a logical fallacy called coincidental correlation.

By way of proof, I recommend Ashish Nandy's excellent tome, Exiled At Home, to really understand communal strife in India. Here's a short thesis:- 'Communal' riots are among the most secular phenomena in modern India. They have more to do with oppurtunistic politicians (of all religions, obviously), and a police force badly in need of reform, rather than heightened religiosity, or even, that Great Indian Distraction, Ayodhya.

The 2001 Census data has information on Houses, Household Amenities and Assets in India and has very interesting findings. It seems there are some 2.4 million places of worship in the country, as against 1.5 million schools and colleges and a mere 600,000 hospitals and dispensaries. No wonder there is so much unnecessary religious strife.

No, we never had riots as far as anyone can remember.

Before you read the 2001 Census Report, or that shiny worthless rag, India Today, may I point out to a more useful site on logical fallacies? In particular, you'll note the similarity between your implied reasoning ("India has more religious structures than schools or hospitals. It also has a lot of religious strife. Therefore, the large number of religious structures causes strife.") and a logical fallacy called coincidental correlation.

By way of proof, I recommend Ashish Nandy's excellent tome, Exiled At Home, to really understand communal strife in India. Here's a short thesis:- 'Communal' riots are among the most secular phenomena in modern India. They have more to do with oppurtunistic politicians (of all religions, obviously), and a police force badly in need of reform, rather than heightened religiosity, or even, that Great Indian Distraction, Ayodhya.

[glows slightly] 'tis! an amazing book.

One interesting thing about AHWOSG is the pace -- it starts out slooow, where every incident is described in great detail. It steadily accelerates throughout until the ending which is like "and then everybody grew upandgotahaircutandarealjobhappeverafterTHEEND."

At first I thought it was a little disappointing that such great writing could wind down so trivially. I would have expected it to be more evenly paced, with some brilliant dramatic event unfolding and coming to a climax somewhere about halfway between the middle and the end of the book.

But ( ironically? NOT! Ha!) life is like that: when you're a kid, every day seems like an eternity, and everything is terribly meaningful. As you get older it just...accelerates, and everything just seems less important--except the things that really are , which you never "get" except in retrospect.

To get back to the original article and the original topic, I liked the way it made the distinction amongst rhetorical irony, philosophical irony and situational irony.

For IBM, even more of a corporate bully in its day than M$, to be championing open source software, and even going to the wall for OSS against SCO, is situational irony. It's the opposite of what we've learned to expect from them.

Next week, class, we will discuss Syllogisms (anyone who had to live through the Reagan/Thatcher era will recognise these devices!).

Wellll....what you're describing is an attempt at knowledgable and responsible use. Some of that knowledge, which gives you understanding of how careful you must be, as you have described, is gained in the very type of clinical trials required by the FDA approval process. Unfortunately, where clinical trials are perceived to be biased and regulation perceived to be unnecessarily draconian (criminalised, for example), the only way users of those substances find out the real level of care that needs to be exercised is through trial and error on human subjects, and the results of their "experiments" are only be conveyed through rumour and anecdote-- the legendary bad trips you hear about, people winding up institutionalised or dead, through uh, not exercising due caution.

Even in the unregulated herbal preparations, the quantity of the active ingredient can vary wildly from batch to batch, which can make responsible use more difficult. Regulation would ensure more consistency from batch to batch, along with published guidelines on responsible use (no different than the dosage recommendations on a box of aspirin!) which can prevent others from unknowingly using the herbal preparation in a way that would harm themselves and others. So, in a lot of ways we actually agree on the fundamental issue.

I used to pop a couple Sudafed myself, once or twice a semester, to help study--a cup of mah huang tea to clear your head: that sounds even more reasonable! But if you've ever had to be the responsible family member dealing with a parent or sibling who has abused ephedrine, alcohol and other natural, organic and/or legal psychtropics irresponsibly over a long period of time, you might feel differently about the importance of the importance of testing their effects (particularly the long-term effects of prolonged use!) and regulating their use.

Someone who has become inured to rather massive daily doses of a tincture of mah huang is doing physical damage to their heart, has developed a physical addiction to the stuff, and does a lot of social and emotional damage to the people around them. And they can become violent. The constant sleep deprivation alone would be enough to induce serious psychosis. And yet, because it's "natural and organic" they think they can take as much of it as their addiction demands. There's no warning on the label!

I think you'll agree that the heavy-handedness of the FDA's approach to some of these substances only polarises and politicises the issue (and unfortunately they're particularly fond of slippery-slope arguments and other logical fallacies in their debate, which doesn't serve to convince anybody!)-- but at least the public debate gets the idea out to people that they do need to be extremely cautious. If the FDA rather conducted a campaign to distribute credible and balanced information on the basis of unbiased clinical trials regarding some of these substances, they might be far more effective in pursuading people to exercise an appropriate level of caution, and thus serve the public interest more effectively.

This seems to me to be a fallacy of composition... Just because she hasn't fully understood the GPL (she is, after all, just a lady who writes articles for a living -- surprisingly throughout this whole SCO issue she has done very little analytical thinking for being one who calls herself an "analyst") doesn't mean that everything else she said is automatically a misrepresentation, or patently false. Most likely, her thinking is unclear, but that doesn't mean she's in SCO's back pocket or something... Just beacuse you can't see clearly through your rear-view mirror doesn't mean you ignore the big mass hurtling towards you at a 90 miles an hour... (That may be a false analogy but I think you get my point... :)

This seems to me to be a fallacy of composition... Just because she hasn't fully understood the GPL (she is, after all, just a lady who writes articles for a living -- surprisingly throughout this whole SCO issue she has done very little analytical thinking for being one who calls herself an "analyst") doesn't mean that everything else she said is automatically a misrepresentation, or patently false. Most likely, her thinking is unclear, but that doesn't mean she's in SCO's back pocket or something... Just beacuse you can't see clearly through your rear-view mirror doesn't mean you ignore the big mass hurtling towards you at a 90 miles an hour... (That may be a false analogy but I think you get my point... :)

Sliiiidin' down that Slippery Slope!

Look out folks, it's a Slippery Slope!

Nope it's called a slippery slope argument, and it's a logical fallacy.

Ok I'll grant that I might have come up with a better analogy,
But which fallacy would best fit the one I made, so I won't do it again in the future?

Hmmm... my original reply to you vanished. Slash bug?

Here it is:

What stones am I casting?

Also, your driver's license analogy is poor. There are legal differences between a "social contract" and a legally binding contract. Besides, if I were to exceed the speed limit, I would suffer the ramifications if I did (i.e., a ticket and possible jail time depending on how great the violation was). Not to mention the increase to car insurance... (note that I neither verified nor denied your assumption -- mostly as it doesn't matter in this discussion).

You might want to check out this site Particularly "Attacking the person". Tossing out logical fallacies is not the best way to make a point.