Logical conclusion of that line of thinking: Anonymous isn't anything. LOL. Debatable....
That Anonymous isn't a group per se doesn't mean it isn't anything. I would posit that Anonymous is an ideology or attitude, and those are neither groups nor "nothing."
but besides the point: history has already proved you wrong on the first point: False Flag attacks do work, even if the "target" does not exist "in any real sense". See La Mano Negra. Anonymous is not important to attackers (States/MIC/Corporations) - not nearly as much as the potential laws and actions they can do in the name of attacking "it". See "War on Terror/Drugs/Bogyman" for more references.
I think we're talking past each other here. The "false flag" for La Mano Negra (if it was indeed a false-flag situation) wasn't "La Mano Negra," it was "an anarchist group." Things were done by that group and then used to justify attacks on other groups. Fine. But how do you apply that to a "group" that attacks disparate targets, seremingly at random, for contradictory reasons? Are you saying you can false flag as "random people on the Internet" in a meaningful way?
Pseudo-self-esteem from pseudo-social activities is not "real". Nobody thinks better of you, because you spam your facebook page with really "confident" inane trivial crap. People react to a sense of self derived from merit. From accomplishment. From personality. They see through bullshit. Further, regardless of what they taught us in public school, what you think about yourself is almost entirely irrelevant. There is an endless supply of self-assured wastes of oxygen. I'd rather be judged on my merit and accomplishments and even personality than just looking in a mirror and telling myself "gosh darn it, I love myself!" and therefore deluding myself into believing that nothing else mattered but my own opinion of self. And chances are, if I accomplish those things, I *will* feel good about myself. And posting inane garbage on Facebook to rack up friend numbers or mingle with pretend-friends online is not accomplishing anything. It's the most empty form of self-esteem.
I agree with you on pretty much every point. Real self esteem is based on merit and accomplishments, and without those anything you tell yourself or others is empty. The only counter-point I would make is that it's not a given that simply accomplishing things leads to feeling good about yourself; there are plenty of people who fail, for whatever reason, to acknowledge their own accomplishments and merits. Without that acknowledgement, the accomplishments aren't worth much in terms of self-esteem. And though this study is flawed up and down both sides, I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine that surfing your own Facebook page reminds you of the merits and accomplishments you've made, and thus spike self esteem in the short term.
It's like wearing a nice suit and looking in the mirror -- you don't look any different than you did before looking in the mirror, but seeing yourself that way can make you feel good.
"False Flag" only works if you mistakenly believe that Anonymous is a unit in any real sense. Claiming to be Anonymous is only meaningful to people who don't understand what Anonymous is.
"Evidence obtained illegally may be excluded from the exclusionary rule"
Legalese: Where a double negative can... er... what now?
The Exclusionary Rule states that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible. That illegally-obtained evidence may be excluded from the Exclustionary Rule, and thus be admissible, if the listed criteria apply. It's not that hard to follow.
Do you doubt for a second that the government can do a better job of parenting than most of the parents?
What governments do is not parenting.
Parenting is not simply laying out and enforcing "the rules."
Parenting properly understood is meant to prepare children to be functional adults. Banned content and arbitrary age restrictions does not accomplish that end.
Fifteen dollars buys you four years of copyright protection; should be doable even for the starving artist. And if the work becomes a hit, a thousand dollars buys you 10 years of monopoly rights to the work. If you hit the jackpot, a million dollars for 20 years doesn't sound all that bad. For a billion dollars, you'll be good for 30 years.
The registration fees would make the system self-sustaining, maybe even cash positive for the federal government.
I think you vastly over-estimate the efficiency of any govenment agency.
Actually, I meant that as a joke, but looking at the numbers I'd be surprised if anyone bet more than $1000 on any given work. The value of most things in the market diminishes over time, but the cost to retain copright increases relatively sharply. Especially if there's no "added" cost for year-to-year renewals, I'm sure the beancounters will turn a crank and determine that after, say, the 12th year the cost of renewal isn't worth the expected income.
Which isn't to say that your system couldn't work, but I definitely think it's a stretch to say it would be a self-sustaining or net-positive operation.
The lack of copyright is exactly why It's A Wonderful Life became as popular as it did. The film wasn't protected, and so TV stations were free to play it; which they did during the Christmas holiday. It became a pervasive fixture because it saved the stations money, versus running anything else (or, I suppose, just going dark).
Here's my problem with the above, with no particular rancor to Mr. Twain -- Copyright is not intended to be wellfare for artists. It is rather an agreement of fair dealing, of sorts, to compel artists to create given the fear that, without proper incentive, they would not. Society is better off having artists create than not having art, so if the question is between Copyright or No Art, then copyright is the better choice.
I think this is a falsehood, though; I believe that many if not most artists would create even in the absense of copyright, or really any monetary incentive. I'm not saying that artists don't deserve to be recognized and rewarded. But many if not most artists would create for their own reasons -- and therefore, copyright is not necessary to ensure culture. In fact, it can and has been shown that copyright can actively hinder the creative act, which is seen again and again by publishers, companies, and estates saying "you can't create that; I own it and/or it's inspiration." So Copyright is not necessary for art, and can be shown to inhibit art, therefore it should be severely limited, if not out-right abolished.
That is assuming that Copyright is meant as an incentive, which the wording of the US Constitution supposes. If you intend for copyright to be wellfare, then I ask: why? If an author produces one work and nothing else, why should we continually reward him for that one act? If he's capable of more creation, then let him create anmd be rewarded on those merits; if he's incapable...? If he's very successful for 14 years, he should be financially prudent and work to secure his future based on that succcess; if he's financially imprudent, why should we reward that? Let me rephrase -- why should we be compelled by the government to reward that?
The Taj Mahal took 16 years to build. It's nigh impossible to find something that isn't physical taking over 14 years to create.
I thought we were talking about copyrights, which deal with non-physical ideas and expressions, but if we're talking about patents you might have a point, maybe. Not sure you could really patent "the Taj Mahal," though -- and if you did, the market would be pretty narrow.
Yes, but barring their explicitly saying so, you cannot objectively verify they have skewed priorities, you can only 'Think' they have them.
I dispute the assertion that you can't gauge one's priorities by means other than them saying so. I'm not claiming it's easy to determine in any given situation, but that doesn't mean the scenario is absurd.
Even if that weren't true, sometimes they do say as much outright, so I'm not sure what you're driving at, except to strawman my argument against the overly-simplified morality presented by the AC above.
Yeah, meaningful was a bad term to use; interesting fits. Regardless, I submit that it COULD happen, with current technology, and I think it would be creepy.:p
To break lines, end with <br> or <br><br>, or bracket your paragraphs in <p> and </p> like <p>this phrase here.</p>
No, I was honestly just being flippant about utilitarianism.
If pressed, I'd have to admit that I operate by utilitarian principles on a day-to-day basis, but some of the extreme-end arguments do get pretty weird and supernatural.
Yes, Mr. Spock, no one is persuaded by anything other than cold, hard facts. Ever listen to Randi Rhodes or Glenn Beck?
The argument isn't that people are only persuaded by facts, but that any other form of persuastion is immoral. When you put up examples like Rhodes and Beck, I'm inclined to agree...
But the problematic assumption of his assertion is that facts always succeed in persuading, which isn't true. People constantly refuse to be moved by facts.
So if I get a bunch of friends together(increasing cooperation) and remove all your organs to save 5+ other people(increased well-being of the most people) you would be totally cool with that?
Really, it's the moral thing to do. WealthyChef should be ashamed for not volunteering his internal organs.
(The obvious argument is that WealthyChef contributes more to society as a whole (double entendre?) than the five people you would save, but really that's a pretty arrogant argument for him to make.)
If the people charged with carrying it out then turn on the people who give them their directives and try to manipulate them into changing parameters, then they're no longer fulfilling the implicit directive of carrying out their superiors' decisions, they're trying to alter their superiors' decisions and change the parameters of "the mission," setting their own goals first. We have a term for that already: it's called 'the tail wagging the dog'.
"The Mission" is better understood as "take that hill," not "take that hill with three men and a spork." It's dangerous to make requesting additional resources an act of insubordination.
Well, first, my argument was against the simplified stance of "the only moral action is..." Secondly, I didn't say "it's OK if you THINK the other person has skewed priorities," I asked "is it OK if the other person HAS skewed priorities?" The difference is subtle, but it's possible to concieve of objectively skewed priorities ("so a few million people die; look at all the money I'm making!").
And again, my point is less about the morality of this situation and more about the validity of the "the only moral action is..." statement.
Not acusing you of being a slouch, just noting that your anecdote doesn't really argue much against computers' ability to have meaningful conversations.
"The Hatch Act of 1939 is a United States federal law whose main provision is to prohibit federal employees (civil servants) from engaging in partisan political activity."
I think it's a little bit of a stretch to call "requesting more resources to do your job" a "partisan political activity." The things that usually fall under that are stuff like campaigning for a presidential candidate or something.
The only morally correct way to convince someone of your position is to present the evidence (and the rationale).
What if the other person has compromised rationality and/or skewed priorities and interests. If they are unwilling or unable to act rationally, or they have disordered interests, is it better to act "morally correct" and unecessarily put the lives of your men at risk, or manipulate their compromised rationality in order to secure the optimal outcome for the men on the front lines?
It's a question of one man's (potentially-compromised) rationality versus hundreds or more men's lives. And remember that to "target" is the one who put those men on the battlefield in the first place.
With Google and "expert systems," I think a lot of that can be "fixed." That is, your computer didn't have "life experience" because you didn't give it any. Now, program a system that contains TV Tropes and UrbanDictionary, and you might have some really colorful conversations...
Slashdot Mirror
Logical conclusion of that line of thinking: Anonymous isn't anything. LOL. Debatable....
That Anonymous isn't a group per se doesn't mean it isn't anything. I would posit that Anonymous is an ideology or attitude, and those are neither groups nor "nothing."
but besides the point: history has already proved you wrong on the first point: False Flag attacks do work, even if the "target" does not exist "in any real sense". See La Mano Negra. Anonymous is not important to attackers (States/MIC/Corporations) - not nearly as much as the potential laws and actions they can do in the name of attacking "it". See "War on Terror/Drugs/Bogyman" for more references.
I think we're talking past each other here. The "false flag" for La Mano Negra (if it was indeed a false-flag situation) wasn't "La Mano Negra," it was "an anarchist group." Things were done by that group and then used to justify attacks on other groups. Fine. But how do you apply that to a "group" that attacks disparate targets, seremingly at random, for contradictory reasons? Are you saying you can false flag as "random people on the Internet" in a meaningful way?
Pseudo-self-esteem from pseudo-social activities is not "real". Nobody thinks better of you, because you spam your facebook page with really "confident" inane trivial crap. People react to a sense of self derived from merit. From accomplishment. From personality. They see through bullshit. Further, regardless of what they taught us in public school, what you think about yourself is almost entirely irrelevant. There is an endless supply of self-assured wastes of oxygen. I'd rather be judged on my merit and accomplishments and even personality than just looking in a mirror and telling myself "gosh darn it, I love myself!" and therefore deluding myself into believing that nothing else mattered but my own opinion of self. And chances are, if I accomplish those things, I *will* feel good about myself. And posting inane garbage on Facebook to rack up friend numbers or mingle with pretend-friends online is not accomplishing anything. It's the most empty form of self-esteem.
I agree with you on pretty much every point. Real self esteem is based on merit and accomplishments, and without those anything you tell yourself or others is empty. The only counter-point I would make is that it's not a given that simply accomplishing things leads to feeling good about yourself; there are plenty of people who fail, for whatever reason, to acknowledge their own accomplishments and merits. Without that acknowledgement, the accomplishments aren't worth much in terms of self-esteem. And though this study is flawed up and down both sides, I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine that surfing your own Facebook page reminds you of the merits and accomplishments you've made, and thus spike self esteem in the short term.
It's like wearing a nice suit and looking in the mirror -- you don't look any different than you did before looking in the mirror, but seeing yourself that way can make you feel good.
As the old proverb goes, "when Godzilla and Mechagodzilla fight, only Tokyo suffers."
"False Flag" only works if you mistakenly believe that Anonymous is a unit in any real sense. Claiming to be Anonymous is only meaningful to people who don't understand what Anonymous is.
"Evidence obtained illegally may be excluded from the exclusionary rule"
Legalese: Where a double negative can... er... what now?
The Exclusionary Rule states that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible. That illegally-obtained evidence may be excluded from the Exclustionary Rule, and thus be admissible, if the listed criteria apply. It's not that hard to follow.
Do you doubt for a second that the government can do a better job of parenting than most of the parents?
What governments do is not parenting.
Parenting is not simply laying out and enforcing "the rules."
Parenting properly understood is meant to prepare children to be functional adults. Banned content and arbitrary age restrictions does not accomplish that end.
Fifteen dollars buys you four years of copyright protection; should be doable even for the starving artist. And if the work becomes a hit, a thousand dollars buys you 10 years of monopoly rights to the work. If you hit the jackpot, a million dollars for 20 years doesn't sound all that bad. For a billion dollars, you'll be good for 30 years.
The registration fees would make the system self-sustaining, maybe even cash positive for the federal government.
I think you vastly over-estimate the efficiency of any govenment agency.
Actually, I meant that as a joke, but looking at the numbers I'd be surprised if anyone bet more than $1000 on any given work. The value of most things in the market diminishes over time, but the cost to retain copright increases relatively sharply. Especially if there's no "added" cost for year-to-year renewals, I'm sure the beancounters will turn a crank and determine that after, say, the 12th year the cost of renewal isn't worth the expected income.
Which isn't to say that your system couldn't work, but I definitely think it's a stretch to say it would be a self-sustaining or net-positive operation.
The lack of copyright is exactly why It's A Wonderful Life became as popular as it did. The film wasn't protected, and so TV stations were free to play it; which they did during the Christmas holiday. It became a pervasive fixture because it saved the stations money, versus running anything else (or, I suppose, just going dark).
Here's my problem with the above, with no particular rancor to Mr. Twain -- Copyright is not intended to be wellfare for artists. It is rather an agreement of fair dealing, of sorts, to compel artists to create given the fear that, without proper incentive, they would not. Society is better off having artists create than not having art, so if the question is between Copyright or No Art, then copyright is the better choice.
I think this is a falsehood, though; I believe that many if not most artists would create even in the absense of copyright, or really any monetary incentive. I'm not saying that artists don't deserve to be recognized and rewarded. But many if not most artists would create for their own reasons -- and therefore, copyright is not necessary to ensure culture. In fact, it can and has been shown that copyright can actively hinder the creative act, which is seen again and again by publishers, companies, and estates saying "you can't create that; I own it and/or it's inspiration." So Copyright is not necessary for art, and can be shown to inhibit art, therefore it should be severely limited, if not out-right abolished.
That is assuming that Copyright is meant as an incentive, which the wording of the US Constitution supposes. If you intend for copyright to be wellfare, then I ask: why? If an author produces one work and nothing else, why should we continually reward him for that one act? If he's capable of more creation, then let him create anmd be rewarded on those merits; if he's incapable...? If he's very successful for 14 years, he should be financially prudent and work to secure his future based on that succcess; if he's financially imprudent, why should we reward that? Let me rephrase -- why should we be compelled by the government to reward that?
The Taj Mahal took 16 years to build. It's nigh impossible to find something that isn't physical taking over 14 years to create.
I thought we were talking about copyrights, which deal with non-physical ideas and expressions, but if we're talking about patents you might have a point, maybe. Not sure you could really patent "the Taj Mahal," though -- and if you did, the market would be pretty narrow.
With the exception of DNF, name one.
I thought they changed it because they couldn't copyright/trademark "Sci-Fi".
Yes, but barring their explicitly saying so, you cannot objectively verify they have skewed priorities, you can only 'Think' they have them.
I dispute the assertion that you can't gauge one's priorities by means other than them saying so. I'm not claiming it's easy to determine in any given situation, but that doesn't mean the scenario is absurd.
Even if that weren't true, sometimes they do say as much outright, so I'm not sure what you're driving at, except to strawman my argument against the overly-simplified morality presented by the AC above.
Yeah, meaningful was a bad term to use; interesting fits. Regardless, I submit that it COULD happen, with current technology, and I think it would be creepy. :p
To break lines, end with <br> or <br><br>, or bracket your paragraphs in <p> and </p> like <p>this phrase here.</p>
Did you read what I wrote?
No, I was honestly just being flippant about utilitarianism.
If pressed, I'd have to admit that I operate by utilitarian principles on a day-to-day basis, but some of the extreme-end arguments do get pretty weird and supernatural.
Yes, Mr. Spock, no one is persuaded by anything other than cold, hard facts. Ever listen to Randi Rhodes or Glenn Beck?
The argument isn't that people are only persuaded by facts, but that any other form of persuastion is immoral. When you put up examples like Rhodes and Beck, I'm inclined to agree...
But the problematic assumption of his assertion is that facts always succeed in persuading, which isn't true. People constantly refuse to be moved by facts.
So if I get a bunch of friends together(increasing cooperation) and remove all your organs to save 5+ other people(increased well-being of the most people) you would be totally cool with that?
Really, it's the moral thing to do. WealthyChef should be ashamed for not volunteering his internal organs.
(The obvious argument is that WealthyChef contributes more to society as a whole (double entendre?) than the five people you would save, but really that's a pretty arrogant argument for him to make.)
If the people charged with carrying it out then turn on the people who give them their directives and try to manipulate them into changing parameters, then they're no longer fulfilling the implicit directive of carrying out their superiors' decisions, they're trying to alter their superiors' decisions and change the parameters of "the mission," setting their own goals first. We have a term for that already: it's called 'the tail wagging the dog'.
"The Mission" is better understood as "take that hill," not "take that hill with three men and a spork." It's dangerous to make requesting additional resources an act of insubordination.
You're right, but since there's an equivalent order that applies to soldiers I wasn't marking the difference.
Well, first, my argument was against the simplified stance of "the only moral action is..." Secondly, I didn't say "it's OK if you THINK the other person has skewed priorities," I asked "is it OK if the other person HAS skewed priorities?" The difference is subtle, but it's possible to concieve of objectively skewed priorities ("so a few million people die; look at all the money I'm making!").
And again, my point is less about the morality of this situation and more about the validity of the "the only moral action is..." statement.
Not acusing you of being a slouch, just noting that your anecdote doesn't really argue much against computers' ability to have meaningful conversations.
"The Hatch Act of 1939 is a United States federal law whose main provision is to prohibit federal employees (civil servants) from engaging in partisan political activity."
I think it's a little bit of a stretch to call "requesting more resources to do your job" a "partisan political activity." The things that usually fall under that are stuff like campaigning for a presidential candidate or something.
Interestingly, no one asked the question, "what do I have to plant in their heads to get these boys home?"
The only morally correct way to convince someone of your position is to present the evidence (and the rationale).
What if the other person has compromised rationality and/or skewed priorities and interests. If they are unwilling or unable to act rationally, or they have disordered interests, is it better to act "morally correct" and unecessarily put the lives of your men at risk, or manipulate their compromised rationality in order to secure the optimal outcome for the men on the front lines?
It's a question of one man's (potentially-compromised) rationality versus hundreds or more men's lives. And remember that to "target" is the one who put those men on the battlefield in the first place.
With Google and "expert systems," I think a lot of that can be "fixed." That is, your computer didn't have "life experience" because you didn't give it any. Now, program a system that contains TV Tropes and UrbanDictionary, and you might have some really colorful conversations...