The fact that a doctrine is broadly accepted by a scientific discipline confers a greater than even level of credibility to it. To put it more simply, if 90% of people who study X believe Y, than people that believe !Y face a higher burden of proof. They may be right, the majority may be horribly wrong, but in general, if someone is pushing a revolutionary counter theory, it is more likely that they have made an oversight than that everyone else has made oversights. (Not impossible by any means, just more likely).
To put it simply, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.
I realize that you've acknowledged this, I just wanted it explicitly stated before I respond.
To be honest, the statism is, I would think, irrelevant. There hasn't been a small government candidate in 20 years, from either major party. The focus of the two parties is different, (Republicans want to protect us from others, and from evil, while Democrats want to protect us from ourselves, and from unpleasantness), but both parties are essentially in favor of a large powerful government, as long as it agrees with them.
The thing that tips economists is, I suspect, the same thing that tips most other analytical minds: the Republican party has been steadily tightening ties to the religious right. While religion is not uncommon among thinkers, secularism is more common, and evangelicalism is generally distrusted as too prescriptive and intolerant. Get rid of the Christian right, and the Republicans would probably regain a large chunk of independent to left leaning thinkers.
Academia is conducive to the development of, and exchange of, ideas. The "real world" doesn't drive people back into Conservatism, but it does force them to accept that other people can be, say, lazy selfish asshats.
What has more effect, IMNSHO, is the tendency of people who leave academia to become at least moderately wealthy. A little bribery goes a long way in terms of accepting social justice. After all, if everyone was equally wealthy, nobody would be willing to be your maid.
I've always perceived the following divide:
People who think without doing favor the current Democrat liberalism, which involves a strong government protecting people from themselves, and tolerating everything that doesn't offend them.
People who do without thinking favor the current Republican conservatism, involving a strong government protecting people from others, and favoring conformity in moral and social attitudes.
People who both do and think tend to either favor compromise, or stick strongly to either Libertarian or Marxist ideals. (Personal wealth often plays a role here).
This holds sufficiently true (95+% of the time) in my experience, however YMMV.
Doing here refers to generally difficult or unpleasant labor, regardless of whether it is physical or mental. If it is often repetitious, thankless, frustrating, or simply boring, it counts a doing. (It doesn't, however, matter if it's an occupation, or otherwise for personal benefit, or just a hobby though).
Thinking here refers to regularly analyzing and interpreting information, and connecting facts to come to independent conclusions. Once again, doesn't matter why it's done, just that analytical thought is regularly used.
I sold an old Machine at the MIT swap meet to a guy once, and he gave me full price when I offered to warranty that everything worked and was linux compatible by giving him my phone #. I got a call from him two years later, just thanking me and letting me know it was all still working.
I hear very excellent things about the HTC touch pro, from a guy I know who does dev for them. The one he had to play with was CDMA, and the casing wasn't 100% final, but the main points are all there: Fast Processor, Lots of Memory, VGA screen, good touchscreen, copy-paste functionality, decent camera, BT, GPS, support for fast networks (3G or EVDO rev. a), and it runs Windows mobile. Might not be cheap, but I plan to get the CDMA one when it comes out, if you're on GSM, they should already be available.
Well, sure... too a point. It could use some sort of one-time-pad authentication, or time-based encryption signature, which would make cloning it more difficult. Perhaps even much more difficult. Thing is, they could just mean that it cannot be cloned without taking it apart to get to whatever signature system it uses.
--Has not read TFA--
There's a gigantic spectrum of purchasing decisions between "Fully aware of the alternatives, and chose this device based on usability concerns" and "Slaves to Apple's marketing material" you know.
Calling people who buy the iPhone slaves to Apple's marketing material is a hyperbolistic attempt to make a point, which is that image and marketing are fundamental to what makes Apples sell at the premium that they charge. Most Apple purchasers, especially first time purchasers, haven't done any research, they just got frustrated by their previous device and they have this image of Apple as making stuff that's "easy and intuitive" and "just works". The degree to which that image is correct varies from person to person, but that doesn't actually matter that much anyway, because (thanks to the expectation bias) the expensive device will be perceived as being worth it. Whether there were other devices that would have been just as satisfying is not explored, because that would involve casting doubt on the previous purchasing decision.
Apple know this, and they use it to their advantage as much as possible.
On the other hand, Apple got that image through product development and making design decisions as well as marketing. They spend a huge amount of money and effort getting their products to meet the standards they have for look, and feel, and reliability. Like their design decisions or not, they create products that many people want, and their thirty seconds of fiddling impression is generally very good. Some of that comes from them hiding limitations, but most of that is a consistent, clean UI and good functionality.
Anyway, upshot: most people who buy Apple stuff aren't making fully informed choices, aren't aware of the alternatives, and don't really care. They are being sold by Image. On the other hand, they get a product that most of them are happy with, and they are generally willing to recommend. Sometimes quite... vehemently. And how many of us really do the research, and consider all the alternatives with any other purchasing decisions?
The elements of the UI which are 'Unique' are pretty small and limited. After all copy/paste is fairly common, intuitive finger based interfaces can be found on any of the HTC touch phones, and a full featured mobile browser can be had from Opera quite easily. Not saying the interface isn't well put together, but it's at best unique in its approach to functionality, and that makes it no more or less unique than Vista, or Windows Mobile, or any other OS.
I'm not saying they have absolute control or anything, but seriously, why did that FISA crap pass? Why haven't we gotten the PATRIOT act repealed yet? Why the hell haven't we started pushing laws reducing the power of the executive branch?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but don't the Democrats currently hold both houses? And haven't they been compliant, not to say willing participants throughout much of this? I don't disagree that the people currently in power are evil, but I don't think that Dems get to disassociate themselves from their cowardly compliance and active participation in the perpetration of the worst evils of their nominal opponent. Where was the fighting? Where was the resistance? We've had two years where the Dems have controlled both houses, and nobody has been impeached, nothing has been repealed, they might as well be Republicans. They came into office riding a demand for change, with a mandate to do something different. Instead, they've done nothing at best.
Part of the point is to keep them busier keeping track of the important stuff, so that they have less time to piss away on junkets, funding bills, and campaigning/grandstanding.
The other, more subtle benefit to this is that it tends to keep the established law simple, and reduce considerably the number of places that law relating to a subject is likely to be found, which means the average schmuck doesn't need a lawyer for as many things. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think it might be better than what we have now.
And after all, it doesn't need to be that hard to renew laws, after all, if a bill is up for renewal, most politicians already know how they are likely to vote, and they should have a good idea what needs to go into their signing statement, since they'll know when a law is up for renewal with plenty of advance warning.
But, in general, that is a good thing. If a law couldn't make it through government today, why should it remain on the books? If it isn't needed badly enough for people to demand it, why have it anyway?
But murder isn't what she's being charged with. This isn't about what she did, this is about whether this law is a reasonable law. If it isn't a reasonable law for everybody than it doesn't matter whether we like her or not, she should still be held to the same standard.
I propose a new constitutional amendment: every single statute must be reviewed by the legislature that initially passed it every ten years. It must pass again. It must be subject to veto where applicable again. Every legislator must issue a short signing statement describing A)Why they signed the law (for the benefit of their constituents) B)What they feel the law says, in plain language (for the benefit of all of us) and C)What they intend that the law should cover (for the benefit of future courts)
An unfair, unjust conviction is not better than nothing, it is worse than nothing. It may be better than nothing for her, but there is no person so heinous as to merit selective application of the law, or worse, ex post facto criminalization of a then legal activity. Not one. Not so long as we wish to live in a free society, not so long as we wish to be ruled by law, rather than tried and convicted only in the court of public opinion.
They are charging her under this. Which is unfortunate, since manslaughter or some variant seems more appropriate.
The point being made, however, is that if violating the TOS of a website is a felony, and any schmuck can write whatever TOS they want for their website, than everyone from the *AA who has ever logged into most torrent trackers can be arrested, and prosecuted.* As a logical extension, if the overlords of Slashdot appended a line to the little disclaimer text, requiring those who post anonymously to enter their full name and address, (which they might have) and you had not noticed, and hence had not done so, you would now be a felon.
Now I don't love Lori Drew. In fact, I think she's an evil woman. The point remains, however, that being evil and bitchy is not a crime. If driving a teenage girl to suicide is not already a crime, finding something to prosecute Ms. Drew under is not an acceptable alternative. The unequal application of the law is anathema to the very concept of the rule of law. If our detest for this woman and her actions allows us to retroactively make them illegal, than none of us can ever be certain that our actions are legal. I hope that what Lori Drew did was illegal. If it wasn't, then it should be made so, in a clear and well defined way. But if it wasn't illegal, than she should not be convicted of anything. That's the deal, that's the price of a society ruled by law, rather than whim.
*Yes, I would consider this a good thing. That doesn't change the fact that it's absurd.
I have a brilliant new scheme: Create website, full of stuff which myspace users like. (Bewbs maybe?) Bury a line item in the TOS requiring all visitors to donate money for the upkeep of the site and the inebriation of the admins. Begin charging those who fail to donate with a felony.
For the last 8 years, Bush has been breaking laws as he saw fit, and encouraging, bribing, and even bullying others into breaking them for him. Change is no longer sufficient. We need more than just a new way, we need to send the message that the old was unacceptable. We need our constitutional rights restored, and we need those who ignored those rights, or actively stripped them from us, to be punished.
If telecoms can break the law and receive retroactive immunity, it will be a a message to us that the law no longer holds sway over those with power in this country. It will be a message that the rules are for the powerless people. To tolerate this immunity is to say to the American people: Your government is above the law. Your corporations are above the laws. The laws are for lesser men.
No, just withhold citizenship from them. The test ensures: some level of English literacy, an awareness of the structure of our government, and some of it's history. All of these things are good for someone who plans to vote to have, none of them are unobtainable. Don't Godwin this, nobody is testing for "Good/Loyal/Obedient/Lazy/Terrified" citizens, merely moderately aware ones. As for reasoning abilities, IQ test doesn't really cover that. It covers short term memory, memory access speed, pattern matching, and some basic problem solving. There is no good test for thinking and reasoning, and probably never will be.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that a doctrine is broadly accepted by a scientific discipline confers a greater than even level of credibility to it. To put it more simply, if 90% of people who study X believe Y, than people that believe !Y face a higher burden of proof. They may be right, the majority may be horribly wrong, but in general, if someone is pushing a revolutionary counter theory, it is more likely that they have made an oversight than that everyone else has made oversights. (Not impossible by any means, just more likely).
To put it simply, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.
I realize that you've acknowledged this, I just wanted it explicitly stated before I respond.
To be honest, the statism is, I would think, irrelevant. There hasn't been a small government candidate in 20 years, from either major party. The focus of the two parties is different, (Republicans want to protect us from others, and from evil, while Democrats want to protect us from ourselves, and from unpleasantness), but both parties are essentially in favor of a large powerful government, as long as it agrees with them.
The thing that tips economists is, I suspect, the same thing that tips most other analytical minds: the Republican party has been steadily tightening ties to the religious right. While religion is not uncommon among thinkers, secularism is more common, and evangelicalism is generally distrusted as too prescriptive and intolerant. Get rid of the Christian right, and the Republicans would probably regain a large chunk of independent to left leaning thinkers.
Academia is conducive to the development of, and exchange of, ideas. The "real world" doesn't drive people back into Conservatism, but it does force them to accept that other people can be, say, lazy selfish asshats.
What has more effect, IMNSHO, is the tendency of people who leave academia to become at least moderately wealthy. A little bribery goes a long way in terms of accepting social justice. After all, if everyone was equally wealthy, nobody would be willing to be your maid.
I've always perceived the following divide: People who think without doing favor the current Democrat liberalism, which involves a strong government protecting people from themselves, and tolerating everything that doesn't offend them. People who do without thinking favor the current Republican conservatism, involving a strong government protecting people from others, and favoring conformity in moral and social attitudes. People who both do and think tend to either favor compromise, or stick strongly to either Libertarian or Marxist ideals. (Personal wealth often plays a role here). This holds sufficiently true (95+% of the time) in my experience, however YMMV. Doing here refers to generally difficult or unpleasant labor, regardless of whether it is physical or mental. If it is often repetitious, thankless, frustrating, or simply boring, it counts a doing. (It doesn't, however, matter if it's an occupation, or otherwise for personal benefit, or just a hobby though). Thinking here refers to regularly analyzing and interpreting information, and connecting facts to come to independent conclusions. Once again, doesn't matter why it's done, just that analytical thought is regularly used.
That's because they aren't theocrats.
I sold an old Machine at the MIT swap meet to a guy once, and he gave me full price when I offered to warranty that everything worked and was linux compatible by giving him my phone #. I got a call from him two years later, just thanking me and letting me know it was all still working.
The Touch Pro has the QWERTY goodness, and as much as I would like Android, the extra RAM and more pixels are major selling points for me.
I hear very excellent things about the HTC touch pro, from a guy I know who does dev for them. The one he had to play with was CDMA, and the casing wasn't 100% final, but the main points are all there: Fast Processor, Lots of Memory, VGA screen, good touchscreen, copy-paste functionality, decent camera, BT, GPS, support for fast networks (3G or EVDO rev. a), and it runs Windows mobile. Might not be cheap, but I plan to get the CDMA one when it comes out, if you're on GSM, they should already be available.
Well, sure... too a point. It could use some sort of one-time-pad authentication, or time-based encryption signature, which would make cloning it more difficult. Perhaps even much more difficult. Thing is, they could just mean that it cannot be cloned without taking it apart to get to whatever signature system it uses. --Has not read TFA--
I can just imagine the endless fun when two ships with the same random seed try to jump at once.
There's a gigantic spectrum of purchasing decisions between "Fully aware of the alternatives, and chose this device based on usability concerns" and "Slaves to Apple's marketing material" you know.
Calling people who buy the iPhone slaves to Apple's marketing material is a hyperbolistic attempt to make a point, which is that image and marketing are fundamental to what makes Apples sell at the premium that they charge. Most Apple purchasers, especially first time purchasers, haven't done any research, they just got frustrated by their previous device and they have this image of Apple as making stuff that's "easy and intuitive" and "just works". The degree to which that image is correct varies from person to person, but that doesn't actually matter that much anyway, because (thanks to the expectation bias) the expensive device will be perceived as being worth it. Whether there were other devices that would have been just as satisfying is not explored, because that would involve casting doubt on the previous purchasing decision. Apple know this, and they use it to their advantage as much as possible.
On the other hand, Apple got that image through product development and making design decisions as well as marketing. They spend a huge amount of money and effort getting their products to meet the standards they have for look, and feel, and reliability. Like their design decisions or not, they create products that many people want, and their thirty seconds of fiddling impression is generally very good. Some of that comes from them hiding limitations, but most of that is a consistent, clean UI and good functionality.
Anyway, upshot: most people who buy Apple stuff aren't making fully informed choices, aren't aware of the alternatives, and don't really care. They are being sold by Image. On the other hand, they get a product that most of them are happy with, and they are generally willing to recommend. Sometimes quite... vehemently. And how many of us really do the research, and consider all the alternatives with any other purchasing decisions?
The elements of the UI which are 'Unique' are pretty small and limited. After all copy/paste is fairly common, intuitive finger based interfaces can be found on any of the HTC touch phones, and a full featured mobile browser can be had from Opera quite easily. Not saying the interface isn't well put together, but it's at best unique in its approach to functionality, and that makes it no more or less unique than Vista, or Windows Mobile, or any other OS.
And the phone also has the most amazing of modern input devices, buttons! Now with amazing new tactile feedback, so that you can almost touch type.
I'm not saying they have absolute control or anything, but seriously, why did that FISA crap pass? Why haven't we gotten the PATRIOT act repealed yet? Why the hell haven't we started pushing laws reducing the power of the executive branch?
There are always boxes three and four to try. Four is particularly effective at getting people out of office.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but don't the Democrats currently hold both houses? And haven't they been compliant, not to say willing participants throughout much of this? I don't disagree that the people currently in power are evil, but I don't think that Dems get to disassociate themselves from their cowardly compliance and active participation in the perpetration of the worst evils of their nominal opponent. Where was the fighting? Where was the resistance? We've had two years where the Dems have controlled both houses, and nobody has been impeached, nothing has been repealed, they might as well be Republicans. They came into office riding a demand for change, with a mandate to do something different. Instead, they've done nothing at best.
YMBNH
Part of the point is to keep them busier keeping track of the important stuff, so that they have less time to piss away on junkets, funding bills, and campaigning/grandstanding. The other, more subtle benefit to this is that it tends to keep the established law simple, and reduce considerably the number of places that law relating to a subject is likely to be found, which means the average schmuck doesn't need a lawyer for as many things. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think it might be better than what we have now. And after all, it doesn't need to be that hard to renew laws, after all, if a bill is up for renewal, most politicians already know how they are likely to vote, and they should have a good idea what needs to go into their signing statement, since they'll know when a law is up for renewal with plenty of advance warning.
But, in general, that is a good thing. If a law couldn't make it through government today, why should it remain on the books? If it isn't needed badly enough for people to demand it, why have it anyway?
But murder isn't what she's being charged with. This isn't about what she did, this is about whether this law is a reasonable law. If it isn't a reasonable law for everybody than it doesn't matter whether we like her or not, she should still be held to the same standard.
I propose a new constitutional amendment: every single statute must be reviewed by the legislature that initially passed it every ten years. It must pass again. It must be subject to veto where applicable again. Every legislator must issue a short signing statement describing A)Why they signed the law (for the benefit of their constituents) B)What they feel the law says, in plain language (for the benefit of all of us) and C)What they intend that the law should cover (for the benefit of future courts)
An unfair, unjust conviction is not better than nothing, it is worse than nothing. It may be better than nothing for her, but there is no person so heinous as to merit selective application of the law, or worse, ex post facto criminalization of a then legal activity. Not one. Not so long as we wish to live in a free society, not so long as we wish to be ruled by law, rather than tried and convicted only in the court of public opinion.
They are charging her under this. Which is unfortunate, since manslaughter or some variant seems more appropriate.
The point being made, however, is that if violating the TOS of a website is a felony, and any schmuck can write whatever TOS they want for their website, than everyone from the *AA who has ever logged into most torrent trackers can be arrested, and prosecuted.* As a logical extension, if the overlords of Slashdot appended a line to the little disclaimer text, requiring those who post anonymously to enter their full name and address, (which they might have) and you had not noticed, and hence had not done so, you would now be a felon.
Now I don't love Lori Drew. In fact, I think she's an evil woman. The point remains, however, that being evil and bitchy is not a crime. If driving a teenage girl to suicide is not already a crime, finding something to prosecute Ms. Drew under is not an acceptable alternative. The unequal application of the law is anathema to the very concept of the rule of law. If our detest for this woman and her actions allows us to retroactively make them illegal, than none of us can ever be certain that our actions are legal. I hope that what Lori Drew did was illegal. If it wasn't, then it should be made so, in a clear and well defined way. But if it wasn't illegal, than she should not be convicted of anything. That's the deal, that's the price of a society ruled by law, rather than whim.
*Yes, I would consider this a good thing. That doesn't change the fact that it's absurd.
I have a brilliant new scheme: Create website, full of stuff which myspace users like. (Bewbs maybe?) Bury a line item in the TOS requiring all visitors to donate money for the upkeep of the site and the inebriation of the admins. Begin charging those who fail to donate with a felony.
For the last 8 years, Bush has been breaking laws as he saw fit, and encouraging, bribing, and even bullying others into breaking them for him. Change is no longer sufficient. We need more than just a new way, we need to send the message that the old was unacceptable. We need our constitutional rights restored, and we need those who ignored those rights, or actively stripped them from us, to be punished.
If telecoms can break the law and receive retroactive immunity, it will be a a message to us that the law no longer holds sway over those with power in this country. It will be a message that the rules are for the powerless people. To tolerate this immunity is to say to the American people: Your government is above the law. Your corporations are above the laws. The laws are for lesser men.
No, just withhold citizenship from them. The test ensures: some level of English literacy, an awareness of the structure of our government, and some of it's history. All of these things are good for someone who plans to vote to have, none of them are unobtainable. Don't Godwin this, nobody is testing for "Good/Loyal/Obedient/Lazy/Terrified" citizens, merely moderately aware ones. As for reasoning abilities, IQ test doesn't really cover that. It covers short term memory, memory access speed, pattern matching, and some basic problem solving. There is no good test for thinking and reasoning, and probably never will be.