Slashdot Mirror

Parent is an obvious apologist but I'll respond anyways.

The Space Shuttle didn't work? You have to be kidding!

nope

Someone who claims the space shuttle "didn't work" probably was saying in 2003, "I'm glad those 486's were retired. They weren't even multi-pipelined. Good thing we have these Pentium III / Athlon processors now to take us to new levels of productivity."

Nope, the Itanium (Merced) is the better analogy. It could do the things it was designed to do, eventually, but for most purposes is not cost effective even thought it looks better on paper. But the Shuttle didn't even look good on paper. You should go listen to the recent Science Friday archive with one of the original Shuttle designers. They *knew* that it was a BS design-by-committee craft and they spent lots of time before it got built trying to make up lies to justify it.

Do you think any system is going to hit all of its goals the first time around?

After 30 years of incremental progress it ought to have at least come close.

Furthermore, their design goal was not to be $50M per launch.

You're right, in today's dollars it would be more like $40M. In reality it's about $1500M. They missed by a factor of 40.

Their design goal was to send people and cargo to low-earth-orbit to increase our engineering and science knowledge in space and to return people and cargo safely

So far so good.

to a runway touchdown

What good has that done?

A hope that they would achieve spaceflight at $50M per launch was merely a political fantasy, which is irrelevant.

Wait, this was funded by the American people. Are you saying they were lied to but that's irrelevant?

From a long-term perspective, it doesn't matter if the shuttle cost 10x its initial estimate to operate.

It's 40x the per-launch cost, but in terms of opportunity costs, the number is much higher - there were only 1/10th the number of projected flights. We probably could have launched rockets once a week, but in the rocket/space station model that wouldn't have been necessary. Better, faster, and cheaper.

It gave us experience and knowledge from refining processes / technology / materials of the initial system. It has taught us what works, what is difficult to make work and what the practical tradeoffs are for a given spacecraft design. These are the benefits from simply being in the environment.

True, and an alternate spaceflight program would also have yielded these kinds of results.

To quote Han Solo, "flyin' through [hyper]space ain't like dustin' crops, boy!"

That's the authority to quote?

Tell me: How you are going to do an analysis of a failed ammonia pump on the space station without the shuttle?

How big is it? Will it fit on a Soyuz? If not, can you imagine human engineers could develop a larger version of the Soyuz?

You cannot open up a pump containing (or, even if vented, that previously contained) poisonous fluid on the space station.

Wait, why don't they have a sealed maintenance bay on the ISS? Maybe because the launch costs are so high? Maybe because it wouldn't fit in a shuttle? All of Skylab was lifted by one (1) rocket.

Thus, you need to bring it back to Earth. What is the only vehicle can do this? hmm? ... crickets... Yes, the space shuttle.

Right, so in a world where only the Shuttle got built, only the Shuttle is available for materials returns. That's simply begging the question.

For those that want a car analogy, the ISS operating without the space shuttle would be like throwing out the entire contents of your car's engine bay in your car when something goes wrong, and ordering a new one for replacement (that may or may not develop the sa

This is akin to a theist saying "how do you propose we observe Heaven" as "proof" that their god exists.

It's interesting that you mention religion. We can have George C. Marshall (US WWII General and Nobel Peace Prize winner) write a letter to the President about recovering an extraterrestrial craft, we can have several Presidents of the United States talk about extraterrestrial life (even seeing craft themselves), we can have the Belgian army release F-16 sensor data about craft that appear on independent radars and perform far beyond the capabilities of human craft, and yet, since these all disagree with the so-called 'skeptical' view, these people are all denounced as mentally unstable. This sounds more like an orthodoxy railing against heretics than anything that resembles science.

That's not my problem. If you're foolish enough to think that aliens are traveling across lightyears of space in order to mutilate cattle and ass-rape rednecks, that's your problem.

I don't think I ever mentioned this. You're making a composition error.

Nobody is asking here for anything that can't be falsified.

Yes, they are. When the vast majority of UFO sightings have turned out to have prosaic, natural explanations, only a fool would stand there and continue to insist that the remaining "unexplained" incidents are actually little green men in flying saucers. It's no different than any other pseudo-science or religion; the beliefs of the people making the claims cannot be changed because they do not rely on evidence - they rely on faith. As such, they are by definition unfalsifiable.

Either you misunderstand or misrepresent on purpose. I was talking about building a sensor network to rival NORAD or the like. If such a system is built, and there are no echos, the hypothesis is falsified. No mention of 'little green men' was ever made - again, you falsely conflate.

The best example of this is the crop-circles; the people who came up with the idea have come forward and admitted it was a hoax. They've shown us how it's done. They've even been commissioned by corporations and governments to create advertisements using the same method. Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence, there's no shortage of idiots who continue to claim that some crop-circles are actually signs of a UFO landing. How is that not "asking for anything that can't be falsified"?

And a third time. You quote my comment but appear to be having an argument with somebody else. Try harder.

If your kid was to take a bunch of cash from home and spend it at the resturant/ movies,etc. do you have a right to ask for it back from the business owners?? Or would you discipline the child?

It depends on the etc.
If whatever was bought was consumable, then you don't have a right to get it back (in this case, a concert/movie is consumable, a souvenir of such is not). However, if it was not consumable (I would put electronic purchase in this category), then you should be able to get a refund. Especially in the case of a high-end purchase by a minor (say an amount that would bump from misdemeanor to felony).
However, this would depend on whether there was any wear/tear on the product (which should not be possible for electronic purchases).

Also, false dilemma.

What part of my argument is illogicial or extreme? Let's not degenerate this thread into baseless acusations.. please elaborate what you mean.

How about this part?

... does that mean that we should be patching hardware and software written in '68? or '65?
...If you want to drive a Model T,...

You exaggerated my 3-5 year comment on computer support to over 45 years and my 45 yr extreme example with cars to nearly 100 years. Exaggerating what someone said to the point of absurdity is called a Straw Man, it's one of the logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are by definition illogical.

I made no assertions about using computers from the '60s, or the '20s, or even the 1990s. I didn't mention DOS and I didn't even mention Windows 2000 which XP replaced 10 years ago. However, MS was still selling XP less than 2 years ago for Netbooks. XP is stiil a significant portion of the installed base. They still represent over 50% of users browsing the Internet. Ignoring XP isn't just ignoring mom&pop, it's ignoring the majority of the user base.

You can still get parts and service for those 20-45yr old cars. Mostly, you can still get parts and service for 3-10 yr old computers, but it's getting hard to get security fixes for applications that will run on them. Applications, while not physical parts, are vital "parts" of a computer. Cars don't get less secure or more vulnerable to attack, computers do, so the analogy of not being able to get replacement parts for an older car is about the closest analogy you can get to being unable to get applications and security fixes for a computer. Once a networked computer can't get secure applications or security patches for the OS, it's life on the net gets very short.

This begs the question: If Amazon refuses, can/will Apple remote uninstall the already installed Kindle apps on various devices?

Can they? Probably, people have noted the existence of files that seem to support remote app removal from a iOS device. However, to this date I can't find any evidence that it's been used.

Will they? I doubt it. It looks like Apple's policy is to stop the app from being sold in the app store but if you already have it installed then they leave it alone. It doesn't appear like they'd change away from this policy any time soon, although the possibility is certainly there.

A side nit to pick, it also doesn't beg the question. Begging the question is when you are arguing for the existence of something and using evidence that requires the thing's existence in the first place. Example from the linked website:

Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."

I know, I know, I'm probably being too pedantic but I figure that people would like to know how to use a saying properly. I know that I've been glad to have people do this for me many times in the past!

It's an ethically interesting question. If the solution is as simple as building multi-story meat growing labs to save space, what happens if it is found out that eating this stuff gives you some kind of nano-enhanced synthetic cancer or something?

This is a textbook red herring argument, the appeal to fear.

You could say this sort of thing about nearly everything. What if sneezing might cause you to have a embolism that can kill you? What if farm-grown organic vegetables might contain deadly parasites? What if God might get angry at you for not eating what he has commanded you to eat and so he smites you down?

Of course we should make sure that any new food source is as safe as we can reasonably make it, that's a given. Let's debate on real, known, present issues rather than introducing horror scenarios just to try to sway opinion through fear-mongering.

Which one of those others fought a lawsuit to preserve their right to lie?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Although I have a great distaste for faux news

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

I don't think Moore has ever denied that he has an agenda, and that he's telling the story his way.

Wait, are they stories or documentaries?

Because if they're stories, then that's cool. He can make stuff up all he wants. I think that a dinosaur on a rocket in Fahrenheit 911 would have been spectacular... but that's his call.

If they're documentaries (as they seem to be when it comes to awards time), then it would be great if they didn't take so many liberties with facts and stuff. I wouldn't call them documentaries any more than the "works" of James O’Keefe.

You have to ask yourself, does James O’Keefe make documentaries? If anyone thinks that only one of these guys makes documentaries, then you should look into the fallacy of special pleading.

Are you asian or do you have asian relatives? No?

Actually, yes. But I'm not really sure that matters. I would never be so presumptuous as to assert that having Asian relatives makes me an expert on all things Asia.

I do have asian relatives who grew up in their native countries before moving to the US, so I'm aware of how they're expected to act

Define "Asian" in this context. Do you realize that there is an enormous amount of cultural diversity between different countries in Asia? And within a given country as well? If a person in Japan had a *Mexican* relative, would that qualify him as an expert on *American* culture?

and yes, it IS like a robot - someone who unthinkingly does what they're told by their boss / parent / spouse and "brings shame" if they dare to do what they want instead of what they're told.

So you are making generalizations about all of Asia based on the few relatives that you know? This is a type of logical fallacy known as a Hasty Generalization. My personal experiences living in Japan directly contradict your claim that Asian people are like robots. I met hundreds of people who I would describe as rebellious, who were doing what they wanted rather than what they were told. Many were way more rebellious than I was growing up in America. So I would say that our personal anecdotes would cancel each other out.

I would question whether you even understand your relatives as well as you think you do. Your "brings shame" quote sounds like something out of "The Last Samurai" rather than anything that anyobody would *actually* say. Is it possible that you are just projecting a popular stereotype of Asian culture onto your relatives instead of actually getting to know them? If you said to your Asian cousins, "Asians are like robots", what do you think they would say in response? Would they beep affirmatively and walk away? Or might they actually exercise some free will and disagree with you?

And I've got news for you - Americans do what their bosses, parents, and spouses tell them to do all the time. How is it that when Americans follow orders it is "thinkingly" but when Asians do it, it is "unthinkingly"?

If we all followed traditions, women would be stuck in the kitchen or relegated to only jobs like being a teacher, nurse, or secretary. Blindly following tradition is the exact opposite of thinking freely. A free thinker says "why" and rejects the notion of tradition for the sake of tradition. You don't understand this though and think that it's somehow possible to combine "no free will" with "free thinking".

You are putting the word *blindly* in my mouth, and then attacking me for saying that we should *blindly* follow rules and traditions. This is an example of the Straw Man logical fallacy. In reality, I agree with you that we should challenge laws and traditions that are harmful to society. For example, I would support challenging the TSA's new laws requiring passengers to either pass through a backscatter x-ray machine or be pat down before boarding a flight - on the grounds that the law does more harm than good.

I merely said that sometimes we might choose to *follow* a rule or tradition, without in any way sacrificing our ability to *think* freely.

You cannot tolerate the notion that someone might choose differently than you do and thus try to insult them and call them moron's simply because they don't bow to your infinite wisdom.

You just said that Asians are like robots, and your are calling me intolerant?

I welcome opposing opinions - as long as they have some basis in logical thought. Your arguments do not. If you are going to respond to me again, please try to do so without committing any more

Are you asian or do you have asian relatives? No?

Actually, yes. But I'm not really sure that matters. I would never be so presumptuous as to assert that having Asian relatives makes me an expert on all things Asia.

I do have asian relatives who grew up in their native countries before moving to the US, so I'm aware of how they're expected to act

Define "Asian" in this context. Do you realize that there is an enormous amount of cultural diversity between different countries in Asia? And within a given country as well? If a person in Japan had a *Mexican* relative, would that qualify him as an expert on *American* culture?

and yes, it IS like a robot - someone who unthinkingly does what they're told by their boss / parent / spouse and "brings shame" if they dare to do what they want instead of what they're told.

So you are making generalizations about all of Asia based on the few relatives that you know? This is a type of logical fallacy known as a Hasty Generalization. My personal experiences living in Japan directly contradict your claim that Asian people are like robots. I met hundreds of people who I would describe as rebellious, who were doing what they wanted rather than what they were told. Many were way more rebellious than I was growing up in America. So I would say that our personal anecdotes would cancel each other out.

I would question whether you even understand your relatives as well as you think you do. Your "brings shame" quote sounds like something out of "The Last Samurai" rather than anything that anyobody would *actually* say. Is it possible that you are just projecting a popular stereotype of Asian culture onto your relatives instead of actually getting to know them? If you said to your Asian cousins, "Asians are like robots", what do you think they would say in response? Would they beep affirmatively and walk away? Or might they actually exercise some free will and disagree with you?

And I've got news for you - Americans do what their bosses, parents, and spouses tell them to do all the time. How is it that when Americans follow orders it is "thinkingly" but when Asians do it, it is "unthinkingly"?

If we all followed traditions, women would be stuck in the kitchen or relegated to only jobs like being a teacher, nurse, or secretary. Blindly following tradition is the exact opposite of thinking freely. A free thinker says "why" and rejects the notion of tradition for the sake of tradition. You don't understand this though and think that it's somehow possible to combine "no free will" with "free thinking".

You are putting the word *blindly* in my mouth, and then attacking me for saying that we should *blindly* follow rules and traditions. This is an example of the Straw Man logical fallacy. In reality, I agree with you that we should challenge laws and traditions that are harmful to society. For example, I would support challenging the TSA's new laws requiring passengers to either pass through a backscatter x-ray machine or be pat down before boarding a flight - on the grounds that the law does more harm than good.

I merely said that sometimes we might choose to *follow* a rule or tradition, without in any way sacrificing our ability to *think* freely.

You cannot tolerate the notion that someone might choose differently than you do and thus try to insult them and call them moron's simply because they don't bow to your infinite wisdom.

You just said that Asians are like robots, and your are calling me intolerant?

I welcome opposing opinions - as long as they have some basis in logical thought. Your arguments do not. If you are going to respond to me again, please try to do so without committing any more

So why the bomb threat? Which is by the way illegal.

Only if made with intent to cause distruption. There was no intent. The CPS were aware of this and didn't charge him with a bomb threat.

Why did he threathen people who had no way of knowing whether he was serious or not?

Why was the airport not closed if they thought there was some possibility he was serious.

If only then people had listened. How is the police to know if someone is just spouting off or making a serious threat? Damned if they do nothing, damned if they do something.

"Doing something" could involve questioning the guy and telling him to be more circumspect in the future. That would have been reasonable.

Should the police have ignored the threat, like they ignored others that did turn out to be right? Or just put a fullscale alert on the airport just in case and let the taxpayer pay for it?

False dichotomy.

This story is just more evidence of the sad state of our voting population who just doesn't seem to be aware of the real world and its rules. If you do not like them vote to change them but don't go into some kind of hissy fit when long established laws end up biting you in the ass.

They applied a somewhat arcane law that was intended for a somewhat different purpose.

Guess what, freedom of speech does not exist in the UK,

Yes it does. Firstly by tradition, secondly because it's actually enshrined in the Human Rights Act.

Real story: Asshole who wanted to show off got send to jail for breaking the law.

He had no intention of showing off and was fined, not sent to Gaol.

Really, this guy wasn't making a political statement,

No. Nobody thinks he was.

this was just someone wanting to scare others because his penis is to small.

He had no intention to scare anyone

And before you get all outraged, answer me this. WHY did he send this message out into the world?

He sent it to his friend. Normally the only people who would have seen it were those who were friends of both of them. Do you have the first idea of how Twitter works? The only reason anyone else saw it was because of a search for "Robin Hood Airport".

When THAT reason gets reported I think his public sympathy outside wanker land will be lost instantly.

If he wanted anyone else to see it why did he direct it at a single specific person?

There is a direct correlation between welfare net and crime, the more effective the social welfare net the lower the crime rate.

You didn't provide any numbers, which hints at total bullshittery, but I'll bite. Because every nation has a different cultural makeup, comparisons can only be made within a nation and not between them. From when the "War on Poverty" was instituted by President Lyndon Johnson until 1991, total crime increased every year. It began to decrease in the 1990s, but then PLUMMETED after 1996 when welfare reform was enacted under President Clinton.

For the idiot right wingers who refuse to accept the blindingly obvious, for the numb nuts of the political spectrum simply compare Canada, to the US, to Mexico, of course right wingers will want to waffle on all kinds of bullshit rather than accept the obvious.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Next Tuesday, MS will break the record for patches in one day.

So because MS issues patches on a monthly cycle that that is your evidence that Windows is less secure? Really? Thats the evidence you have?

Your obscurity argument would hold more water if most *NIX would not dominate the server hosting as much as it does.

# of computers / # of servers = X

If X is large then...

*nix fills the definition of obscurity outstandingly, so your shameful attempt to modify the argument into a "server hosting" twist is simply that.. shameful. Your twist on things is 100% correct, but still doesnt make *nix less obscure. I'm not going to bother to figure out which one of these you are guilty of, here.

They now attack windows because it is the majority of all machines networked, just like they attacked *nix before windows had that majority. Advisory after advisory for *nix and VMS, year after year.

So, for all intents and purposes, as of right now, *NIX is more secure and evidence suggests that this is because it is obscure.

There. Fixed that for you.

Once they've managed to take that inch, the mile inevitably follows.

It's a shame that you chose to wrap up your otherwise flawless argument with a direct restatement of the slippery slope logical fallacy.

obviously the pirated software has value over the free alternatives

I debunk your argument by naming this common logical fallacy. This is a textbook example of begging the question based on a false presumption that some F/OSS alternative exists for every marketed software. By the way, why try to make something a "right" when one can already sue for damages based on simple law that already covers this topic anyway, theft. You might want to rethink your argument.

In Russia this type of propaganda is as acceptable as Americans whole believe Obama is not a US citizen.

Staw man argument. Nothing to see here. Move along.

How did this toxic pollen evolve?

Of course humans have intentions - brains operate differently than bark. It's of course true that the basis for our brains is simple electro-chemical/quantum interactions, but from that base are built ever more complex structures, some of which generate intentions.

To say a brain has no intentions is to say that a city has no neighborhoods because houses are made of wood, stone and metal, which have no neighborhoods. This is a division error.

an embryo certainly is not a person

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html If you're not sure when an embryo becomes a person, wouldn't you-- when faced with a reasonable doubt-- take the path that doesn't result in death?

What about the fact that the pledge was written by a socialist to advance socialist ideas?

Umm... I don't know, "what about it?" What does that have to do my opinion that "God" does not belong in the pledge or elsewhere in the public sphere? Does tacking His name on after-the-fact somehow undo the "socialist ideas" you think Francis Bellamy was trying to espouse?

What a bizarre reply. You're not trying to pull something like this, are you?

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

      1. Topic A is under discussion.
      2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
      3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

The lady doth protest too much. Your question is meaningless without the further clarification I'm asking for.

But once again, you need to learn what clarification means. You are essentially asking me to describe the mechanics of how are CO2 emissions reduction scheme would work. But if you DON'T KNOW how the scheme would work how can you know that the cost of fuel in Kenya will double? And how can you know that implementing the scheme will cause children to starve? So the assertion you made was fairly straightforward: that the implementation of a carbon emissions trading scheme will lead to a doubling of the cost of fuel in Kenya.

1. If you insist on me telling you whether or not Kenya is excluded from a cap/other form of restriction on emissions, then I will tell you, but I will have to conclude that since you don't know that, that your whole argument is fallacious, because you didn't even understand the detail of the scheme you were commenting upon.

2. Otherwise you can describe your theoretical scheme, the details of which you know enough about to calculate it's effect on fuel prices in Kenya, and we drill down on the accuracy of your model.

In future, you might not want to enter into discussions on topics which you nothing about.

When you're talking about implementing CO2 emissions caps on only the 1st world countries, how does that prevent global CO2 emissions from creating the same kind of warming you suspect would happen without caps?

Well, thanks for introducing a strawman.

You frame your question in terms of avoiding caps in 3rd world countries, but that framing contradicts your motivation in the first place.

You made the assertion at hand - you should know whether or not the 'caps' (if caps are used in as a mechanism) apply to Least Developed nations or they do not. Secondly, I've been fairly clear on my motivation :- which is for you to show your working on the assertion you are defending.

In the wider sense, I'm well aware of the denialist practice of attempting to shape discussions in order to create the impression that the burden of proof lies with someone else ( a classic burden of proof fallacy. So I'm also motivated to ensure that that doesn't happen in this conversation.

Is this simply an inherent hypocrisy in your position, or do you not understand how you're undermining your own assertions?

Given that you made (and are defending) the assertion at hand, your statement reads like a Chewbacca Defence.

2. When I use the phrase "extreme weather events" am I referring primarily to hurricanes?

And now I'm supposed to be a mind reader for you? How about this - when I use the phrase "da kine", am I referring primarily to food?

I expect you to keep track of where we are at in this conversation. If not, you can always look back into the history of this thread - or answer the question when it's asked, and avoid this problem in the first place. So again:

2. When I use the phrase "extreme weather events" am I referring primarily to hurricanes?

1. Is Bangladesh bordering on the North Atlantic, or in fact, nowhere near it?

Does global temperature determine weather, or is it in fact completely independent of weather distribution?

Again with the fallacious attempts to change the subject! Sorry Bullwinkle, that trick never works. Here's a tip: Don't quote weather data about the North Atlantic the prove your assertions about climatic changes in Bangladesh, when data on the latter is readily available. Unless you expect to be able to prove and demonstrate levels of uniformity in climate changes.

The lady doth protest too much. Your question is meaningless without the further clarification I'm asking for.

But once again, you need to learn what clarification means. You are essentially asking me to describe the mechanics of how are CO2 emissions reduction scheme would work. But if you DON'T KNOW how the scheme would work how can you know that the cost of fuel in Kenya will double? And how can you know that implementing the scheme will cause children to starve? So the assertion you made was fairly straightforward: that the implementation of a carbon emissions trading scheme will lead to a doubling of the cost of fuel in Kenya.

1. If you insist on me telling you whether or not Kenya is excluded from a cap/other form of restriction on emissions, then I will tell you, but I will have to conclude that since you don't know that, that your whole argument is fallacious, because you didn't even understand the detail of the scheme you were commenting upon.

2. Otherwise you can describe your theoretical scheme, the details of which you know enough about to calculate it's effect on fuel prices in Kenya, and we drill down on the accuracy of your model.

In future, you might not want to enter into discussions on topics which you nothing about.

When you're talking about implementing CO2 emissions caps on only the 1st world countries, how does that prevent global CO2 emissions from creating the same kind of warming you suspect would happen without caps?

Well, thanks for introducing a strawman.

You frame your question in terms of avoiding caps in 3rd world countries, but that framing contradicts your motivation in the first place.

You made the assertion at hand - you should know whether or not the 'caps' (if caps are used in as a mechanism) apply to Least Developed nations or they do not. Secondly, I've been fairly clear on my motivation :- which is for you to show your working on the assertion you are defending.

In the wider sense, I'm well aware of the denialist practice of attempting to shape discussions in order to create the impression that the burden of proof lies with someone else ( a classic burden of proof fallacy. So I'm also motivated to ensure that that doesn't happen in this conversation.

Is this simply an inherent hypocrisy in your position, or do you not understand how you're undermining your own assertions?

Given that you made (and are defending) the assertion at hand, your statement reads like a Chewbacca Defence.

2. When I use the phrase "extreme weather events" am I referring primarily to hurricanes?

And now I'm supposed to be a mind reader for you? How about this - when I use the phrase "da kine", am I referring primarily to food?

I expect you to keep track of where we are at in this conversation. If not, you can always look back into the history of this thread - or answer the question when it's asked, and avoid this problem in the first place. So again:

2. When I use the phrase "extreme weather events" am I referring primarily to hurricanes?

1. Is Bangladesh bordering on the North Atlantic, or in fact, nowhere near it?

Does global temperature determine weather, or is it in fact completely independent of weather distribution?

Again with the fallacious attempts to change the subject! Sorry Bullwinkle, that trick never works. Here's a tip: Don't quote weather data about the North Atlantic the prove your assertions about climatic changes in Bangladesh, when data on the latter is readily available. Unless you expect to be able to prove and demonstrate levels of uniformity in climate changes.

I'm not sure if the parent's post qualifies as a Tu Quoque fallacy or as a personal attack.

I'm not sure if the parent's post qualifies as a Tu Quoque fallacy or as a personal attack.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

So let's say one side of a debate says we should teach that the Earth is about 4 billion years old, and the other side says we should teach that the Earth is about 6000 years old. If we go with your idea of compromising, we now end up choosing to either teach both (which is confusing) or teaching that Earth is about 2 billion years old (which is clearly wrong). (See also the Middle Ground fallacy)

The other problem with "Oh, just compromise" is that it tends to favor whichever side adopts the more extreme position. For instance, if I propose increasing Social Security payments to $10,000 per month, and you think that nothing should change, when we compromise those payments might be only $5,000 per month, but is still far closer to what I wanted than what you wanted.

The third problem is that attempts to compromise favor the group that refuses to play. It would be like a price bargaining that goes something like this: "I'll pay $50." "I'll only sell for $150." "I'll only pay $50." "Well, ok, I'll sell for $125." "I'll only pay $50." ...

The geologic record shows the vast majority of earth history has been warmer than it is now

Quit being a pedantic jackass. I think it's clear I meant "on human record", as in, during the period which the human species has existed.

Well, there you have it; Don't present facts to a climate change cultist, or you're a pedantic jackass. Got it loud and clear!

Clearly the earth itself has been warmer in the past. Hell, the surface was molten at one point. But it certainly wasn't hospitable to human life at the time...

Nice straw man you have there. I could point out more scientific facts, but I guess that would just make me more of a pedantic jackass. I see you have no need for factual information. Clearly you just make it up as you go along (^_^)

Good to see a Tu quoque fallacy still warrants a +5 Insightful here on the ol' Slashdots, though maybe it only works if you put a few random words in ALL CAPS.

Of course your closing slippery slope fallacy just helps things along.

No? Start here:: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

I did read what you wrote, but apparently you have a problem with reading comprehension.

I'm not saying these systems create a police state, I'm saying that unopposed installation of these systems is a step towards a police state.

So, you have decided to move on to the slippery-slope fallacy. Great move.

After the ShotSpotter installations, full blown London style CCTV is only a small step away.

Unless, of course, it isn't and it doesn't. A camera that takes a picture of an area after a crime has occurred is much different than a CCTV system that monitors the streets constantly and it is not "only a small step" from one to the other. It is a rather large step.

Comparing CCTV coverage and citizen tracking systems to "just more police on the street" is bogus. Police on regular patrol duty don't track and log your movements for later.

Red herring. This is not about CCTV or citizen tracking systems. This is about a system that images a location where a specific act, an act that is illegal in almost every city in the United States, has occurred.

Someone disagreeing with you is not a "red herring".

Let us see what a red herring is:

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

Your response to my post was an FUD filled screed and said absolutely nothing about the shotspooter system. You chose to try and change the topic to general privacy rights and your irrational, paranoid fear that the United States is becoming a police state, a stance which you did not even bother to provide any proof. Your post was a red herring, an attempt to change the subject to something else.

Now, that I have explained to you where you failed, will you please shut the fuck up?

Is it just me or is the entire world going into a period of reduced freedom and increased state control? Every developed nation appears to be banning violent games, porn and free speech in general and they're doing it for no logical reasons.

Straw man and slippery slope. I'm not refuting or agreeing, just pointing out that the argument is weak.

Is it just me or is the entire world going into a period of reduced freedom and increased state control? Every developed nation appears to be banning violent games, porn and free speech in general and they're doing it for no logical reasons.

Straw man and slippery slope. I'm not refuting or agreeing, just pointing out that the argument is weak.

There are privacy concerns here, but not civil liberties ones (well, no more than are raised by all the other "papers").

Congrats, you win the Appeal to Common Practice logical fallacy award!

Any government action that impedes an individual's natural rights without preventing harm to others is immoral.

The idea that everyone who doesn't like that the hypothetical country killed millions of people and does something about it automatically joins the "guerrilla army" stretches the concept quite far.

Classic false dilemma. There are other possibilities besides "everybody" and "nobody". And it doesn't take that many to launch a suicide attack or keep a conventional army running in circles.

Maybe another problem is people who employ the logical fallacies of Appeal to Tradition and Appeal to Popularity to try to prop up a Politically Correct publication because it jibes with their science-corrupting left-wing political views.

Maybe another problem is people who employ the logical fallacies of Appeal to Tradition and Appeal to Popularity to try to prop up a Politically Correct publication because it jibes with their science-corrupting left-wing political views.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between a rhetorical device (simile, metaphor, hyperbole, etc) and a fallacy (ad hominem, begging the question, straw man).

I super quick test in case you aren't sure: a rhetorical device, when used correctly and understood by the target audience, will always enhance the idea you are trying to convey, whereas a fallacy cannot be used correctly by definition, and when understood by the target audience will always undermine the idea you are trying to convey.

Fallacies are specific to arguments, rhetorical devices are not.

If you want a list of fallacies to study up on so you can tell the difference next time, try this site.

Oh and in case you weren't able to glean it from my text: yes, I do think you are a moron.

Going for the guilt by association card so early in the morning? ;)

And where did I use guilt by association? I don't recall ever associating Pystar with SCO, all I said was that they are using the same tactics. Both Hitler and Stalin massacred many people, but saying that does not mean I am associating them, they hated each other.

Falcon

Like SCO Pystar has been using delaying tactics.

Going for the guilt by association card so early in the morning? ;)

This.

in a single room, at the same time

they are made at separate times, according to different economic projections, according to different goals, according to different past results, and by separate committees

absolutely you can make a case denver needs more cops. absolutely the homeless doesn't need the shelters. and people are making these cases. IN DIFFERENT ROOMS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE AT DIFFERENT TIMES

to say that this is about priorities, to imply that some demonic mayor is sitting there taking money from cop funding and putting it into homeless shelters absolutely misrepresents the reality of how these decisions are made

If you don't believe me, take your credit card out on the town and make a lot of decisions "in the vacuum of any other considerations" and let me know how that works out

yes, classic demagoguery: you take the reality of a complicated sprawling funding process and reduce it to simplistic emotional scenario: a guy with a credit card choosing between buying food to feed his kids and buying a scratch off ticket. oh wait, you didn't say that. well, you can thank me for making your propaganda even more simplistic and emotional. pfffffffffft

please educate yourself, life is slightly more complicated than you think:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

You've confused copyright with patents. A patent must be filed (published) in order to receive protection.

The right of first publication inheres on creation of a work. This is a common law right pre-dating the Statute of Anne, as well as a statutory right (I can't quote chapter and verse but I believe it was in most cases covered by state statutes until 1976, when it was brought into federal law, but I may be misremembering here).

Well, he writes copyright transfer contracts for a living, so I think he knows how copyright is granted. I don't think you need to lecture him on that. I think you're reading things that he isn't writing. This is what he said:

Well, that's half anyway; really the basis of copyright is encouraging authors to create and publish the most, in exchange for the least copyright, so as to maximize the net public benefit.

...and this is what the Constitution says:

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries...

That looks pretty much the same to me.

Examples of market failure and the legal fiction of the "rational actor" are hot stuff in legal theory right now. Your cold utilitarianism suggests to me that if you didn't graduate from Chicago, you would nevertheless have fit right in.

What's with the ad-hominem attacks? And Poisoning the Well, to boot.

It's okay for you to believe that, but the Constitution says otherwise. Monopolies are not granted lightly, so the Constitution seems to say precisely that innovators should be treated well merely for innovating.

No, it doesn't. I encourage you to re-read the text. It says that creators are to be granted exclusive rights for a limited period. You could interpret that as an intention that creators be treated equitably, but it's a stretch to say it says they should treated well. "Well', to me, implies treatment more favourable to the creator than merely "equitable".

Nice try, but no dice. The author was incentivized to create the work, but the incentives are both backward- and forward-reaching. If people with good ideas see too many other people with good ideas getting screwed, it potentially discourages future innovation.

Potentially. However, frankly speaking, creators have been getting screwed over by publishers since year dot, and as yet we have no shortage of creators, so I think you're making an Appeal to Fear. It appears that at least some creators are wise enough to read and negotiate their contracts appropriately.

At this point I feel I should emphasize that, speaking broadly, I don't disagree with the principle you're espousing, namely, freedom of contract (and the associated responsibility of adhering to said contract). But you have written your response as though 17 USC 203 were the only exception to that principle you've ever seen. But if this were the case, you could teach contract law to anyone in about three minutes. Most of contract law has grown up around the numerous exceptions to the "agreement plus consideration equals binding commitment" formula.

It is, however, the point of contract law at issue. One problem at a time, please.

True, but if you haven't recouped your expenses plus a significant profit after 35 years, you also probably do not have a property that anyone is going to try and reclaim.

So do you also believe that copyright itself should be limited to 35 years, regardless of the lifespan of the author? That is after all, by

You've confused copyright with patents. A patent must be filed (published) in order to receive protection.

The right of first publication inheres on creation of a work. This is a common law right pre-dating the Statute of Anne, as well as a statutory right (I can't quote chapter and verse but I believe it was in most cases covered by state statutes until 1976, when it was brought into federal law, but I may be misremembering here).

Well, he writes copyright transfer contracts for a living, so I think he knows how copyright is granted. I don't think you need to lecture him on that. I think you're reading things that he isn't writing. This is what he said:

Well, that's half anyway; really the basis of copyright is encouraging authors to create and publish the most, in exchange for the least copyright, so as to maximize the net public benefit.

...and this is what the Constitution says:

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries...

That looks pretty much the same to me.

Examples of market failure and the legal fiction of the "rational actor" are hot stuff in legal theory right now. Your cold utilitarianism suggests to me that if you didn't graduate from Chicago, you would nevertheless have fit right in.

What's with the ad-hominem attacks? And Poisoning the Well, to boot.

It's okay for you to believe that, but the Constitution says otherwise. Monopolies are not granted lightly, so the Constitution seems to say precisely that innovators should be treated well merely for innovating.

No, it doesn't. I encourage you to re-read the text. It says that creators are to be granted exclusive rights for a limited period. You could interpret that as an intention that creators be treated equitably, but it's a stretch to say it says they should treated well. "Well', to me, implies treatment more favourable to the creator than merely "equitable".

Nice try, but no dice. The author was incentivized to create the work, but the incentives are both backward- and forward-reaching. If people with good ideas see too many other people with good ideas getting screwed, it potentially discourages future innovation.

Potentially. However, frankly speaking, creators have been getting screwed over by publishers since year dot, and as yet we have no shortage of creators, so I think you're making an Appeal to Fear. It appears that at least some creators are wise enough to read and negotiate their contracts appropriately.

At this point I feel I should emphasize that, speaking broadly, I don't disagree with the principle you're espousing, namely, freedom of contract (and the associated responsibility of adhering to said contract). But you have written your response as though 17 USC 203 were the only exception to that principle you've ever seen. But if this were the case, you could teach contract law to anyone in about three minutes. Most of contract law has grown up around the numerous exceptions to the "agreement plus consideration equals binding commitment" formula.

It is, however, the point of contract law at issue. One problem at a time, please.

True, but if you haven't recouped your expenses plus a significant profit after 35 years, you also probably do not have a property that anyone is going to try and reclaim.

So do you also believe that copyright itself should be limited to 35 years, regardless of the lifespan of the author? That is after all, by

IAAVOA (I Am a Voice-Over Artist), btw.

But not a director or audio mixer, right?
--

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

You're absolutely right. All of those legal scholars, judges, lawyers, etc. who have studied and written about patent law in depth don't understand simple concepts like Venn diagrams. You are clearly the only one who has ever put any real thought into this.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority. They may know about law. They know almost nothing about invention, ideas, linguistics and the creative process. Your automatic assumption that they do is telling. You are making the common error of assuming patent law expertise has any relationship to the real world other than by assertion.

Or not. You know how people complain that patents (and legislation, for that matter) isn't written in plain English?

Of course. A pity that patents are supposed to allow people in the field, not lawyers, to understand the idea. That's the entire point of publishing a patent. Or not.

That's because "plain English" is notoriously vague and nuanced.

And so is legal English in the realm of ideas. Ideas cover the entire realm of human existence. Legal English gets no get-out-of-jail-free card to redefine the entire English language or redefine all of existence.

Your examples - two shades of orange, a file system vs. database, using a car vs. using a vehicle - expose this flaw.

For both English and legal English.

Is a file system different from a database? It depends how you define the two terms.

And what is regarded as the important abstract concept, the idea, referred to by the word label "file system" or "database". Something that the patent office likes to conveniently ignore.

Is using a car different than using a helicopter? Yes, even though they're both vehicles.

Is using a car different from using another car? Yes, even though they're both cars. There are always differences. The question is whether the differences are handwaving or important.

Is light at 590nm different than light at 635nm? They're both orange...

There are always differences. The question is whether the differences are handwaving or important.

As evidenced by the idiotic patents being granted in my area of expertise - software - they have not solved that problem. All they've done is grandfathered in naive and primitive law from centuries ago and said, by assertion and not by evidence, "this is true" when it isn't.

You say that GP's example of using IRC to arrange the delivery of baked goods shouldn't be valid because "it's a particular instance of the use of IRC which is a general purpose communication medium". You missed his entire point - he wasn't claiming IRC, he was claiming a method of delivering goods. Does IRC deliver baked goods? Then IRC being a 'general purpose communication medium' is irrelevant.

Actually, you've missed the point. "he was claiming a method of delivering goods" is another way of saying "a specific instance of use of a general purpose communication medium". It's simply a word change on an existing idea.

IRC is a general purpose communication medium that can be used to do anything, including delivering baked goods. That property is inherent to IRC. A particular instance of it's application should not be patentable because the general principle is prior art. Whatever the patent lawyers might like to assert. I use the word "assert" deliberately because it is a large part of the problem - the patent office trying to define their own, self-serving reality, with almost no object standards in the realm of ideas.

---

The patent system. The whole edifice is based on handwaving.

And your qualificatione for shaking your head are what?

Presumably, having a mind capable of critical thought. Something you would be advised to learn. You are engaging in both the classic logical fallacy of "Appeal to Authority" (described here) and a tired ad homonem attack (you imply the grandparent poster watches star trek, which you implicitly indicate makes any thought they have on the subject meaningless. Both assumptions are themselves meaningless and irreleveant in the context of this discussion, but serve for you to classify the grandparent poster as a member of a group you view inherently as inferior to your rather arrogant self, which you then use as grounds to denigrate and dismiss their argument out of hand, without a shred of supporting logic to justify your stance).

The fact of the matter is that no one, inside of NASA or out, is an "authority" on extra-terrestrial life. No one has ever, as far as we know, detected, much less observed extra-terrestrial life. Everything we know, or think we know, is based purely on supposition and guesswork. In the case of NASA (and the view your post suggests you hold), the supposition that life elsewhere in the universe must (or is even likely to) mimic life on Earth.

Assuming extra-terrestrial life will be like Earth-based life is no more defensible, rational, or likely to be correct than assuming extra-terrestrial life will be nothing like Earth-based life. Assuming water must be intrinsic to life everywhere because we've observed it on one tiny, insignificant planet orbiting an unremarkable star in the outskirts of an equally unremarkable galaxy amounts to drawing statistical conclusions from a sample base with N=1, which is no better, or more intellectually rigorous, than just making random shit up.

The grandparent is right to shake his or her head. Any critically-thinking person would be inclined to do the same when confronted with such broad assumptions about something no one knows anything about, built upon such flimsy evidence.

All life in the universe may require water. Or not. Flip a coin. Based on the data we currently have, you are as likely to be right as any self-appointed "expert" in exobiology.

(Hell, water-based life might be the exception, not the rule. Just because it's us doesn't make it average or representative of the rest of the cosmos. Until we actually find some extra-terrestrial life, we can't even begin to guess the truth on this one way or another).

...this could be the beginning of a new slippery slope.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

A slippery slope argument without any description of the intervening steps is shaky at best.

In this particular instance, I think it's worth pointing out that the "As usual, citing security our government is trying to take away our privacy." cited in TFS are obviously bogus: a computer that is off or is disconnected from a network is a computer that can't violate your privacy until someone physically gets to it. In other words, it's harder to violate your privacy with a computer that is affected by this bill than it is with a computer that's not affected by this bill. There are free speech concerns, but definitely not privacy concerns, and it's important to know the difference.

"Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

That was exactly my point. If everyone who acts in their own self interests is blameless, then you pretty much can't "blame" anybody for anything.

"Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

Well, democracy is fundamentally flawed anyway, so numbers have nothing to do with it. Still, that's the system, so getting enough numbers on one side so that the other side realises it's not worth fighting over is pretty much the whole game.