For example, all modern science is based on faith in one's memory: the belief that anything you recall right now reflects a high degree of truth about what has actually occurred, including an accurate recollection of anything you have read, heard, written or thought. Hell, you can only say that you exist right now because you are thinking right now, but you can't say anything about what has come or is to come.
The burden of proof should be on the scientist to prove that his memory is reliable, but he cannot do this without engaging in his memory. So the legitimacy of science is based on begging the question.
My Android phone syncs to Google while I'm not paying attention.
OK; does that mean you have to maintain a static IP connection 24/7? Does the same apply to even a large minority?
Err... you mean company, right?
I was thinking of typing that but decided against it. The practice generally varies by country/region and telecoms corporations are so intertwined with national and transnational governments that it would be intellectually dishonest to imply otherwise.
No country has close to 100% of its residents connected via multiple mobile Internet connections at the same time, and many countries provide a NATed private IP anyway.
Dual stack is an absolutely fine solution for the current Internet and the "many other issues" usually means someone is about to sell an over-complicated and unnecessary transition solution. But wait, "Happy Eyeballs", ah... today's salesman comes from Cisco. And I find it very difficult to read a proposed standard for seamless transition where the author cannot spell "seamless".
It was hard to tell. Under Anglo-Saxon culture your viewpoint would be likely regarded absurd, but you'd done such a good job demonstrating the doublespeak in the Spanish government and popular viewpoint that I thought you might be real.
Posting on Slashdot is not related to my donation/lack of donation to African children.
Yes, it is. You're relaxing when you could be earning money to donate that money to African children. But you don't want to do that work, even if the chain of events following means some people may die. Neither do the ATC guys.
If you claim that pistols were pointed at ATCs' heads you'll have to provide evidence for that.
Sure: they were drafted and if they try to escape the draft (by both refusing to do the work and refusing to walk to the nearest jail) they will be apprehended by men with guns. If they try to resist arrest, they will be treated as a military criminal suspect resisting arrest.
But if martial law had not been imposed, they'd be free to go home and find another job.
Thus, in the sense in which it is always meant, these ATC guys are working because they are held at gunpoint: their alternatives are work, jail or death.
Do I have to explain why my posting on Slashdot does not make me liable for the deaths of children in Africa? Do you want me to answer that?
If the ATCs "caused" (in the sense of being criminally liable) transplants not to occur because they decided not to give their work, then you "caused" (in the sense of being criminally liable) African children to die because you decide not to give your money.
If you disagree, you need to explain precisely and clearly why this is not true. You can't keep crying "strawman!" "logical fallacy!" without explaining why, unless you're trolling. But you have just argued that there's nothing unreasonable about having your employer unilaterally changed to the military and denied that guns are involved when workers are threatened with imprisonment if they do not comply, so I'm fairly certian you're trolling.
You are right that the continued deployment of emergency powers turns this from an immoral but typical government overreaction to a confirmed effort to reduce the freedom of the Spanish worker.
The maintenance of a clearly unconstitutional continued state of alert casts a shadow on the independence of the judiciary. But at least military rule means the trains^Wplanes run on time and people get to enjoy their holidays, which means popular favour for the government. Success!
You end your day's duties in a safe manner [no-one's left without a route to Internet porn, or whatever it is you do] -> you choose not to work -> people die.
They end their day's duties in a safe manner [no planes fall out of the sky] -> they choose not to work -> people die.
Please explain what about the ATC staff makes them criminally liable and you not. Try not to argue like an Officer in a Royal Navy press gang while doing so.
Children in Africa are dying right now by the thousand because you are posting on/. when you could be working extra hours and donating your income to feed and house them. I am declaring a State of Alarm and you are required to work through all free hours until either you die or poverty is eradicated.
This is not slavery, it's just me setting your employer to me and you having to respond accordingly. No pistols, but I will lock you up (escorted by guys with pistols) if you disagree. The procedure is mostly bureaucratic. Thanks!
They refused to allow a bunch of over paid people, making as much as 900,000 euros *per year*
Irrelevant appeal to emotion.
to take the population hostage (again)
Awful redefinition of "hostage". I want an Xbox within half an hour and you're holding me hostage by not flying a helicopter to my garden with it.
by closing all airport operations.
No, AENA closed all airport operations because a set of air traffic controllers chose not to work...
Had previous administrations addresses this issue properly
...and other air traffic controllers were not available because you the Spanish voter didn't consider it important enough to negotiate either more reasonable terms for all parties or pre-arrange a fallback.
I'm very very satisfied that they did what they had to. Airports are a public service that must run at all times, and strikes must be properly notified, services must be working to a minimum rate, and so on.
Had must must must: all this obligation on the worker to satisfy corporation (this being about AENA's privatisation)! Thank goodness for all those Franco legacies in Spanish law or there'd be no teeth behind the populist propaganda the government uses to justify slavery.
OK, there are two different "rights to strike" here. One is the right to strike, under certain conditions and usually via a well-known procedure involving your union, without being immediately dismissed. This right varies across Western countries and often involves specific regulation in the public sector.
The other is the right to strike without having a gun held to your head and being forced to work. This is what Spain is denying (for ATC today and for you or me tomorrow).
They just stopped working and paralyzed the whole country.
That's weird, because I'm in the UK right now and bad weather has meant airports intermittently opening and closing on several days over the past fortnight. Oddly enough, and despite our awful lack of preparedness for snow+ice, it didn't "paralyze the whole country". Stuff still happens when people can't take a plane for a few days.
There's nothing desperate about not being able to fly. Even if there was, enslaving people is not an acceptable solution.
they relied on the fact that they control the whole Spanish air traffic and could block the country. That's not going on strike, that's not negotiating: that's blackmailing!
All business negotiations are based on assuming that you're needed to do a job and will not work unless terms are agreed upon. The alternative is to enslave people (by law or by otherwise making them sufficiently desperate) so they have no choice but to work. It appears the Spanish government has just set precedent for this and the Spanish people are worryingly naive in assuming that it'll not happen again when it comes time to cut benefits in their line of work.
(I just recall TVE mentioning the incident with Charles/Camilla's car, i.e. rowdy student protests in another country, as part of the reason why it ws necessary to maintain the State of Alert. So the excuse has already had its scope widened.)
In Spain both are felonies, and criminals should be prosecuted.
But that's not what happened, is it? One simple principle of a country subject to the rule of law is that you charge a man with a crime you reasonably suspect he has committed. You don't highlight people who are unpopular then impose martial law to force them to work.
If you think they've committed "social security fraud", even when any reasonable man knows that they were staging a strike and bitter scrutiny of worker protections will be to every worker's detriment, petition the government to have them dealt with for that.
What these assholes did (other than fucking up vacations and job interviews)
Oh boo hoo aeroplane travel is a fundamental right and people owe you.
was call in sick.
That's cheeky, and perhaps wrong, but it's not exactly an unknown method of staging a strike and there's enough evidence to treat it as a strike. Calling in sick when you're not sick is not justification for enslaving you. How many different government apologists will come forward today?
1. I disagree that doctors and electricity generation staff shouldn't be allowed (through criminal law) to strike. If you get to the point where the only reason they're doing the job is because of the gun pointed at their head, you've already lost the point entirely. Regardless, you don't apply martial law to stop strikes: if you want to militarise some profession, which is effectively what you're doing when you make striking illegal, you do it in advance and make sure every worker has provided informed consent.
2. Are you asking who the controllers are working for? AENA is government-owned but the straw which broke the camel's back was the proposal to privatise.
3. Well, getting paid more doesn't make you immune to tiredness and the harm to conentration caused by working excessive hours. Nor does getting paid a lot mean you should lose the right to negotiate or to strike. You as voter are welcome to petition the government as employer to reduce air traffic controller wages, because the solution to hearing that a worker gets paid too much (as opposed to all the useless bureaucrats and bankers who gain ten times as much and are of no social benefit) is to make sure he suffers as much as you. Regardless, you're not welcome to enslave the air traffic controllers because you're bitter that they get paid more than you.
No, they didn't simply all walk out at 1700, but nice toeing of the government line. There was a gradual cessation of operations and not one flight was put in danger. This doesn't mean that what they did was the best way to go about things, and it might have been against their terms of employment and open them up to civil action, but none of this justifies forcing them to work.
. The difference is none of us get payed 17.000 euro every month.
Ah, so your argument comes down to, "You're paid more than me so I get to impose slavery on you when I like without warning!" If you want to campaign for fairer salaries, that's absolutely reasonable, but your method is probably the worst way imaginable. Sigh, Spain's in for a dark few years.
If they don't like what they're doing, go do something else, no one's forcing you to be an air traffic controller.
So they should stop "being an ATC" if they don't like it, but it's okay when they actually stop for them to be forced back to work?
I fear that any censorship/Copyright law is going to be defeated not because it's immoral but because of the twisted envy displayed above, which means any defeat is temporary and depends on either bribing the electorate or waiting a few years.
To give you an idea of the authoritarianism of Spain's government, around three weeks ago it issued a State of Alert because of striking ATCers which came down to, "If you refuse to work, you will be sent to jail." (Conversely, work sets you free.) Note that Spanish ATC was civilian, but an argument was formed that by striking you are denying people freedom of movement. This is probably one of the most Orwellian interpretations of "freedom" Western Europe has seen in recent years, and is the first time quasi-martial law has been enforced in Spain since the fall of Franco.
This is not the sort of government that is about to sympathise with filesharing arguments. It is, like all authoritarian governments, a stickler for procedure, and that's the only real reason this law didn't pass.
Every once in a while I will stll tune into a 'philosophy' show
In which country is "tuning in to a show" an adequate way to get an accurate overview of the latest research in some field?
If you're worried that answerable questions have been answered (lol), that questions thought unanswerable have been answered (omg!) or that some questions were badly posed (sic transit gloria philosophi) you'll have a heart attack when you study the history of mathematics and science.
So I have to endure all this extra bureaucracy, surveillance, homogeneity and dependence for a measly 14 fucking years? Is quantity really that much more important than quality to you?
You are so angry with the assertion that your dear US is more dictatorial than Franco Spain that you have nothing but insults to offer in response.
(1) Lack of codified government censorship of the press may help with freedom, but such laws are wildly overrated. "Free speech" is nothing more than a determination of how loudly you allow people to speak before you shut them up, as Assange has learnt. Controlling elements of more sophisticated nations, the US especially, have learnt that the best approach to speech is to ensure that you can and will always shout louder. It also helps to keep enough people stupid.
(2) The US has only just dropped the fundamentally Christian codified homophobia from the military. With Franco, the provenance of your legally enforced morality was honest; with the US, you have so much law rooted in Christian culture which pretends to be otherwise. Religious influence in today's US is thus far more insidious than in today's.
Could you confirm whether you're referring to the 50 states or the various puppet governments the US has sponsored? I want to gauge the ridiculousness of your assertion.
I've built a house in your back yard so you can deliver the response through the letterbox. I was going to pay property tax as a way of saying thanks but I don't feel like it. Whatever I want, right?
Slashdot Mirror
For example, all modern science is based on faith in one's memory: the belief that anything you recall right now reflects a high degree of truth about what has actually occurred, including an accurate recollection of anything you have read, heard, written or thought. Hell, you can only say that you exist right now because you are thinking right now, but you can't say anything about what has come or is to come.
The burden of proof should be on the scientist to prove that his memory is reliable, but he cannot do this without engaging in his memory. So the legitimacy of science is based on begging the question.
Mobile? No.
My Android phone syncs to Google while I'm not paying attention.
OK; does that mean you have to maintain a static IP connection 24/7? Does the same apply to even a large minority?
Err... you mean company, right?
I was thinking of typing that but decided against it. The practice generally varies by country/region and telecoms corporations are so intertwined with national and transnational governments that it would be intellectually dishonest to imply otherwise.
No country has close to 100% of its residents connected via multiple mobile Internet connections at the same time, and many countries provide a NATed private IP anyway.
Dual stack is an absolutely fine solution for the current Internet and the "many other issues" usually means someone is about to sell an over-complicated and unnecessary transition solution. But wait, "Happy Eyeballs", ah... today's salesman comes from Cisco. And I find it very difficult to read a proposed standard for seamless transition where the author cannot spell "seamless".
If you have any evidence of a positive correlation between friends and "Facebook friends", now is the time to present your paper.
It was hard to tell. Under Anglo-Saxon culture your viewpoint would be likely regarded absurd, but you'd done such a good job demonstrating the doublespeak in the Spanish government and popular viewpoint that I thought you might be real.
OK, you're trolling, I'm done with you.
Posting on Slashdot is not related to my donation/lack of donation to African children.
Yes, it is. You're relaxing when you could be earning money to donate that money to African children. But you don't want to do that work, even if the chain of events following means some people may die. Neither do the ATC guys.
If you claim that pistols were pointed at ATCs' heads you'll have to provide evidence for that.
Sure: they were drafted and if they try to escape the draft (by both refusing to do the work and refusing to walk to the nearest jail) they will be apprehended by men with guns. If they try to resist arrest, they will be treated as a military criminal suspect resisting arrest.
But if martial law had not been imposed, they'd be free to go home and find another job.
Thus, in the sense in which it is always meant, these ATC guys are working because they are held at gunpoint: their alternatives are work, jail or death.
We take you to jail while you await a military trial as stipulated by military law. No guns or any kind of violence involved.
Nonsense. What would happen if you resisted arrest?
The genuine threat of violence is as the violence itself.
Do I have to explain why my posting on Slashdot does not make me liable for the deaths of children in Africa? Do you want me to answer that?
If the ATCs "caused" (in the sense of being criminally liable) transplants not to occur because they decided not to give their work, then you "caused" (in the sense of being criminally liable) African children to die because you decide not to give your money.
If you disagree, you need to explain precisely and clearly why this is not true. You can't keep crying "strawman!" "logical fallacy!" without explaining why, unless you're trolling. But you have just argued that there's nothing unreasonable about having your employer unilaterally changed to the military and denied that guns are involved when workers are threatened with imprisonment if they do not comply, so I'm fairly certian you're trolling.
You are right that the continued deployment of emergency powers turns this from an immoral but typical government overreaction to a confirmed effort to reduce the freedom of the Spanish worker.
The maintenance of a clearly unconstitutional continued state of alert casts a shadow on the independence of the judiciary. But at least military rule means the trains^Wplanes run on time and people get to enjoy their holidays, which means popular favour for the government. Success!
You end your day's duties in a safe manner [no-one's left without a route to Internet porn, or whatever it is you do] -> you choose not to work -> people die.
They end their day's duties in a safe manner [no planes fall out of the sky] -> they choose not to work -> people die.
Please explain what about the ATC staff makes them criminally liable and you not. Try not to argue like an Officer in a Royal Navy press gang while doing so.
Children in Africa are dying right now by the thousand because you are posting on /. when you could be working extra hours and donating your income to feed and house them. I am declaring a State of Alarm and you are required to work through all free hours until either you die or poverty is eradicated.
This is not slavery, it's just me setting your employer to me and you having to respond accordingly. No pistols, but I will lock you up (escorted by guys with pistols) if you disagree. The procedure is mostly bureaucratic. Thanks!
They refused to allow a bunch of over paid people, making as much as 900,000 euros *per year*
Irrelevant appeal to emotion.
to take the population hostage (again)
Awful redefinition of "hostage". I want an Xbox within half an hour and you're holding me hostage by not flying a helicopter to my garden with it.
by closing all airport operations.
No, AENA closed all airport operations because a set of air traffic controllers chose not to work...
Had previous administrations addresses this issue properly
...and other air traffic controllers were not available because you the Spanish voter didn't consider it important enough to negotiate either more reasonable terms for all parties or pre-arrange a fallback.
I'm very very satisfied that they did what they had to. Airports are a public service that must run at all times, and strikes must be properly notified, services must be working to a minimum rate, and so on.
Had must must must: all this obligation on the worker to satisfy corporation (this being about AENA's privatisation)! Thank goodness for all those Franco legacies in Spanish law or there'd be no teeth behind the populist propaganda the government uses to justify slavery.
OK, there are two different "rights to strike" here. One is the right to strike, under certain conditions and usually via a well-known procedure involving your union, without being immediately dismissed. This right varies across Western countries and often involves specific regulation in the public sector.
The other is the right to strike without having a gun held to your head and being forced to work. This is what Spain is denying (for ATC today and for you or me tomorrow).
They just stopped working and paralyzed the whole country.
That's weird, because I'm in the UK right now and bad weather has meant airports intermittently opening and closing on several days over the past fortnight. Oddly enough, and despite our awful lack of preparedness for snow+ice, it didn't "paralyze the whole country". Stuff still happens when people can't take a plane for a few days.
"desperate situations require desperate measures".
There's nothing desperate about not being able to fly. Even if there was, enslaving people is not an acceptable solution.
they relied on the fact that they control the whole Spanish air traffic and could block the country. That's not going on strike, that's not negotiating: that's blackmailing!
All business negotiations are based on assuming that you're needed to do a job and will not work unless terms are agreed upon. The alternative is to enslave people (by law or by otherwise making them sufficiently desperate) so they have no choice but to work. It appears the Spanish government has just set precedent for this and the Spanish people are worryingly naive in assuming that it'll not happen again when it comes time to cut benefits in their line of work.
(I just recall TVE mentioning the incident with Charles/Camilla's car, i.e. rowdy student protests in another country, as part of the reason why it ws necessary to maintain the State of Alert. So the excuse has already had its scope widened.)
In Spain both are felonies, and criminals should be prosecuted.
But that's not what happened, is it? One simple principle of a country subject to the rule of law is that you charge a man with a crime you reasonably suspect he has committed. You don't highlight people who are unpopular then impose martial law to force them to work.
If you think they've committed "social security fraud", even when any reasonable man knows that they were staging a strike and bitter scrutiny of worker protections will be to every worker's detriment, petition the government to have them dealt with for that.
What these assholes did (other than fucking up vacations and job interviews)
Oh boo hoo aeroplane travel is a fundamental right and people owe you.
was call in sick.
That's cheeky, and perhaps wrong, but it's not exactly an unknown method of staging a strike and there's enough evidence to treat it as a strike. Calling in sick when you're not sick is not justification for enslaving you. How many different government apologists will come forward today?
1. I disagree that doctors and electricity generation staff shouldn't be allowed (through criminal law) to strike. If you get to the point where the only reason they're doing the job is because of the gun pointed at their head, you've already lost the point entirely. Regardless, you don't apply martial law to stop strikes: if you want to militarise some profession, which is effectively what you're doing when you make striking illegal, you do it in advance and make sure every worker has provided informed consent.
2. Are you asking who the controllers are working for? AENA is government-owned but the straw which broke the camel's back was the proposal to privatise.
3. Well, getting paid more doesn't make you immune to tiredness and the harm to conentration caused by working excessive hours. Nor does getting paid a lot mean you should lose the right to negotiate or to strike. You as voter are welcome to petition the government as employer to reduce air traffic controller wages, because the solution to hearing that a worker gets paid too much (as opposed to all the useless bureaucrats and bankers who gain ten times as much and are of no social benefit) is to make sure he suffers as much as you. Regardless, you're not welcome to enslave the air traffic controllers because you're bitter that they get paid more than you.
4. Quite.
No, they didn't simply all walk out at 1700, but nice toeing of the government line. There was a gradual cessation of operations and not one flight was put in danger. This doesn't mean that what they did was the best way to go about things, and it might have been against their terms of employment and open them up to civil action, but none of this justifies forcing them to work.
. The difference is none of us get payed 17.000 euro every month.
Ah, so your argument comes down to, "You're paid more than me so I get to impose slavery on you when I like without warning!" If you want to campaign for fairer salaries, that's absolutely reasonable, but your method is probably the worst way imaginable. Sigh, Spain's in for a dark few years.
If they don't like what they're doing, go do something else, no one's forcing you to be an air traffic controller.
So they should stop "being an ATC" if they don't like it, but it's okay when they actually stop for them to be forced back to work?
I fear that any censorship/Copyright law is going to be defeated not because it's immoral but because of the twisted envy displayed above, which means any defeat is temporary and depends on either bribing the electorate or waiting a few years.
To give you an idea of the authoritarianism of Spain's government, around three weeks ago it issued a State of Alert because of striking ATCers which came down to, "If you refuse to work, you will be sent to jail." (Conversely, work sets you free.) Note that Spanish ATC was civilian, but an argument was formed that by striking you are denying people freedom of movement. This is probably one of the most Orwellian interpretations of "freedom" Western Europe has seen in recent years, and is the first time quasi-martial law has been enforced in Spain since the fall of Franco.
This is not the sort of government that is about to sympathise with filesharing arguments. It is, like all authoritarian governments, a stickler for procedure, and that's the only real reason this law didn't pass.
Every once in a while I will stll tune into a 'philosophy' show
In which country is "tuning in to a show" an adequate way to get an accurate overview of the latest research in some field?
If you're worried that answerable questions have been answered (lol), that questions thought unanswerable have been answered (omg!) or that some questions were badly posed (sic transit gloria philosophi) you'll have a heart attack when you study the history of mathematics and science.
So I have to endure all this extra bureaucracy, surveillance, homogeneity and dependence for a measly 14 fucking years? Is quantity really that much more important than quality to you?
You are so angry with the assertion that your dear US is more dictatorial than Franco Spain that you have nothing but insults to offer in response.
(1) Lack of codified government censorship of the press may help with freedom, but such laws are wildly overrated. "Free speech" is nothing more than a determination of how loudly you allow people to speak before you shut them up, as Assange has learnt. Controlling elements of more sophisticated nations, the US especially, have learnt that the best approach to speech is to ensure that you can and will always shout louder. It also helps to keep enough people stupid.
(2) The US has only just dropped the fundamentally Christian codified homophobia from the military. With Franco, the provenance of your legally enforced morality was honest; with the US, you have so much law rooted in Christian culture which pretends to be otherwise. Religious influence in today's US is thus far more insidious than in today's.
Could you confirm whether you're referring to the 50 states or the various puppet governments the US has sponsored? I want to gauge the ridiculousness of your assertion.
I've built a house in your back yard so you can deliver the response through the letterbox. I was going to pay property tax as a way of saying thanks but I don't feel like it. Whatever I want, right?