I really don't see what the problem is with this bill. With most file sharing cases, there are two competing viewpoints: the Slashdot viewpoint, which is that sharing files with friends is clearly fair use and that friends can be very broadly defined; and the industry viewpoint, which is that sharing files with thousands of "friends" with the expectation that you will be able to get thousands of files in return without paying for them is the same as selling pirated DVDs on the street.
In this case, the file sharers targeted are clearly in violation of the law. It is illegal to own a copy of a movie that hasn't been released yet. It is illegal to watch it, and it is illegal to show or distribute it. Three years in jail may be a harsh sentence, but there is no moral or legal justification for violating this law, and so no reasonable person should be worried about it.
> A construction company might choose to discriminate against women because of the entirely true argument that the average woman is shorter and less strong than the average man. Yet while the argument is true, it, alone, is not enough to back up the discrimination. The average woman may be shorter and weaker than the average man, but that doesn't mean I don't know women that couldn't kick Danny DeVito's butt.
Let's say this construction compay hires people based solely on an upper body strength test. And that whiles 80% of men who apply are hired, only 30% of women are. Is this sexist discrimination, do the different numbers simply reflect the fact that men tend to have bigger muscles?
Now, it is far from proven that men are on average better than women at mathematical thinking. But it is equally unproven that the sexes are equal in their mathematical aptitude.
If it is the case that men have some statistical edge in mathematical aptitude, then perhaps we should be striving not for a 50/50 ratio in academic departments but rather for 65/35 or some other number.
It has been social science dogma since the 1960's that all gender differences are socially constructed. This notion was based not on observation but rather on philosophical ideals. The evidence refuting this postulate is substantial: my favorite can be found at this link: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-12/tau -tca121002.php
Actually if you are talking about _three_ events you can talk about simultaneity even in the context of special relativity. If you have two events, close in time and sufficiently seperated in space, you can always define a unique reference frame where the events are simultaneous. However it is not possible in general to find a reference frame where _three_ events are simultaneous... if such a frame exists it means that either the events were planned ahead of time to be simultaneous, or there was a big coincidence. Furthermore, the relative velocity any two stars in the Milky Way is far less than.005c, so the rest frames of the planets in question would be similar enough that any relativistic uncertainty in times would be less than the uncertainty in the techniques we use to date meteor impact craters.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't see what the problem is with this bill. With most file sharing cases, there are two competing viewpoints: the Slashdot viewpoint, which is that sharing files with friends is clearly fair use and that friends can be very broadly defined; and the industry viewpoint, which is that sharing files with thousands of "friends" with the expectation that you will be able to get thousands of files in return without paying for them is the same as selling pirated DVDs on the street.
In this case, the file sharers targeted are clearly in violation of the law. It is illegal to own a copy of a movie that hasn't been released yet. It is illegal to watch it, and it is illegal to show or distribute it. Three years in jail may be a harsh sentence, but there is no moral or legal justification for violating this law, and so no reasonable person should be worried about it.
> A construction company might choose to discriminate against women because of the entirely true argument that the average woman is shorter and less strong than the average man. Yet while the argument is true, it, alone, is not enough to back up the discrimination. The average woman may be shorter and weaker than the average man, but that doesn't mean I don't know women that couldn't kick Danny DeVito's butt.
u -tca121002.php
Let's say this construction compay hires people based solely on an upper body strength test. And that whiles 80% of men who apply are hired, only 30% of women are. Is this sexist discrimination, do the different numbers simply reflect the fact that men tend to have bigger muscles?
Now, it is far from proven that men are on average better than women at mathematical thinking. But it is equally unproven that the sexes are equal in their mathematical aptitude.
If it is the case that men have some statistical edge in mathematical aptitude, then perhaps we should be striving not for a 50/50 ratio in academic departments but rather for 65/35 or some other number.
It has been social science dogma since the 1960's that all gender differences are socially constructed. This notion was based not on observation but rather on philosophical ideals. The evidence refuting this postulate is substantial: my favorite can be found at this link:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-12/ta
Actually if you are talking about _three_ events you can talk about simultaneity even in the context of special relativity. If you have two events, close in time and sufficiently seperated in space, you can always define a unique reference frame where the events are simultaneous. However it is not possible in general to find a reference frame where _three_ events are simultaneous ... if such a frame exists it means that either the events were planned ahead of time to be simultaneous, or there was a big coincidence. Furthermore, the relative velocity any two stars in the Milky Way is far less than .005c, so the rest frames of the planets in question would be similar enough that any relativistic uncertainty in times would be less than the uncertainty in the techniques we use to date meteor impact craters.