And you do know that most people that are 'rich' don't make the majority of their money bringing in income, right? They do it using investments and such, things that get taxed under this thing called 'Capital Gains'. That thing that used to be 15% of what you brought in that way. So what's the point of talking about what the marginal rate on income is when the biggest loophole you'll ever see is staring you in the face?
You can't invest your way entirely to prosperity, so this heavy incentive to invest seems foolhardy. Eventually, SOMEONE needs to make something useful.
I hope you're making a mistake in saying that patients don't make all the key decisions about health care, at least when it comes to their own care. See, most hospitals I've ever gone to have this big thing about consent. You must consent to care before it will be given. Sometimes that consent is pretty broadly written, but consent can be dialed back to only those things you actually consent to. To the point about whether they know what they're deciding or not, that doesn't matter from this standpoint because if they don't understand, the professional advising them should do their best to inform them the implications of what was found, what the outcomes are, and what can be done to treat it. That turns simple consent into 'informed consent', a term brandished about the profession.
The decision on what to do ultimately rests with the patient, as the patient must give consent for it. If you don't include consent into the mix for patient care, then you subjugate anyone with a 'medical ailment' to someone else's will and force on them something they may not want. Last I checked, we consider force in that instance to be wrong, with possible exceptions in times when consent cannot be obtained for people certified to be unable to give consent (incapacitated, mentally ill, etc). Even then, though, someone deemed responsible for that patient is asked instead, if available.
Issues about cost, payment and the like are irrelevant from the decision standpoint, and something that the hospital or medical professional can make sure the patient is able to pay, first, before costly treatments. If unable, the hospital, to my knowledge, does not have to provide care outside of ER scenarios.
Are you also anti-medicine, as that is a 'technical intrusion into matters of life and death'? No medicines, no splints for broken legs, no respirators, no dialysis machines, or anything of the sort. Or is your complaint with technical intrusions limited to the extreme ends, where it either ends a life or makes a new one?
This is basically how I see it too. While I'm on board with sexual offenses being some of the most violating forms of violence on others, it's being applied in places it doesn't belong, such as (without prior coercion) taking a nude picture of yourself should you be under age, at the most basic enforcement. Making the law ever stricter just ensures that you'll have a reason to compel compliance at best, and get the aggressor to live in fear.
Reform (something our justice system SHOULD be focused on) shouldn't be about living in fear, it's should be about not wanting to commit the acts again and feeling remorse for the acts committed. If you go to the extreme and tag them for life, you give no incentive to behave and every incentive to commit crimes again. This ultimately does not help build a better society.
To play Devil's Advocate for a moment... is there any particular need to give tax breaks for people needing to buy large vehicles for large families? Do we give tax breaks because large families consume a larger dollar figure in food too? Or is it just the cost of having a large family?
I'm not picking one side or the other, but the notion that the large families NEED tax breaks because it costs more seems off to me.
I always thought prohibition went back to moral puritans that felt that alcohol was somehow the Devil's work and needed to be legislated away. I don't recall it was something women as a gender had any vested interest in enacting. Either way, that moral experiment failed horribly, unless you love Nascar, and we're back to enjoying whatever mind-altering liquid refreshment we like (almost).
Isn't that equivalent to the answer of 'If you don't want Windows SmartScreen to tell Microsoft about your installed apps, go into Privacy and turn it off.'?
It would seem to me that the point the parent was making is that Chrome's data reporting habits and this new one in Windows 8 are effectively the same. Both are enabled by default, and both report data back to their 'owners'. That both have an 'opt out' to turn them off really doesn't differentiate or describe either one as awesome with regards to privacy.
Why stick to religion on that one. For over 100 years, the United States didn't consider women citizens either. It wasn't until the 20th century that they were even allowed to vote. Seems like all these kinds of folks are trying to do is return us to the 'less complicated' days when women were more like property and less like human beings.
Do you get to control what you create at a workplace? Your employer gives you money to do work with and you use it to create something. Do you then get ownership of that creation, despite the fact that it was funded from your employer? A bit disingenuous, don't you think?
In other words, there is precedent for the person or entity funding a project to retain ownership of it despite it being created by another party.
Instead of, oh, I don't know, simply implementing a rate limit to the number of patches that are allowed to be deployed to consoles. One makes you money, the other accomplishes the same task, but there's no money involved. No shocker which one the business goes for.
What's the point of certification of your game for a 5 figure fee if they at least don't provide SOMETHING useful other than a little sticker that says "I approve this game"?
Plants consume CO2 and O2 for different reasons, photosynthesis and cellular respiration. If you watch atmospheric levels of CO2, they dip and rise in response to the seasons. The image from wikipedia below kind of shows this trend. The red line is average CO2 levels, the grey one is the more accurate one that responds to seasons. See, while plants sequester CO2 during photosynthesis, deciduous trees lose a lot of plant matter at the end of the growing season that rots, releasing CO2 back into the air during the fall and winter months.
You're confusing science with something else, I think. Going back to the parent, the skeptics need to disprove one of several reliably tested things, that 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, 2) atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing, and 3) Man is dumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. The conclusion from these simple statements is that temperatures will increase because of man's contribution. There has been a body of work already indicating these three criteria already exist. Predictions based on these criteria may be inaccurate or may be incomplete due to other forces at work not included in the model, but that doesn't make them wrong for what we know.
Skeptics may disagree with the recommended actions and they may disagree on the predictions based on the gathered evidence, but to refute the science behind the prediction, skeptics need to provide the evidence to the contrary. It also helps if they also can follow the scientific theory and come to a conclusion of their own. Bonus points for including other scientific works (even the work they're trying to refute) in their research. Skeptics seem to have a vested interest in the status quo. They don't get to push off the burden of responsibility on others just to maintain it. If there IS evidence to the contrary, we ALL benefit from knowing about it, and it is in their best interest to get it published. It would go a long way to holding up their argument.
Simply saying "I don't believe you or your conclusions about the future" is not a valid scientific rebuttal. It is laziness at it's finest and the sign of a closed mind.
You're absolutely right. Those are people, and the people have rights to free speech. Can a corporation sign a petition, or do the constituents sign the petition? When a corporation does sign or say something, does it do it on its own, or does it use a proxy... perhaps an authorized representative of the human species to do it instead? Nothing says that you cannot collectively group together and have your voices heard. Hell, that's what a petition IS, is a collective group of people standing together on the same idea. What you should not be able to do is say "We are and we get one extra voice because the right of the corporation to be heard is just as important as the right of the people." People can argue on behalf of corporate interests, but it is the people speaking, NOT the corporation.
What makes me laugh the most, though, is that you held this idea that "corporate speech" is somehow the weakest form. Tell me again how ineffective corporate lobbying is against constituent lobbying in US politics?
You know, it could just be that THIS property (ie: music) is deemed to have little enough value that owning it just isn't worth the value they want for it, arguments about burden aside. There's no amount of availability or free that could make me want to own an Bieber album, for instance. To take the commentary on current music listening habits and extract it to the very general 'we don't want to own, we want convenience in all things' and 'we want castration because we don't want to make the choice' is just a really bad argument.
Because it can't work. Because we can't go faster than the speed of sound? Because it can't be true that we orbit the sun? Those sound like someone closing the book and dismissing a possibility before determining whether or not it can be done. Any scientist I would consider worth their salt would say instead "We have not yet found evidence to believe that such a process exists" or something similar. It's similar to the idea that we can't go faster than the speed of light, AND YET, someone's hypothesizing suggests that it may be possible globally while not doing so locally (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive). Obviously, we lack evidence that it can be done, but making a blanket statement of "can't" dismisses a possibility out of hand without any good reason why not. Humans have been the masters of doing what "can't" be done, when we figured out how.
So no, "because it can't work" isn't a valid way to disprove a scientific claim. It's a small-minded way to say "I don't believe you."
Cute, but incomplete. We've also found that by enticement, we often get far more willing and creative participation than we could have obtained via force. Or, we would if we weren't all sitting on Slashdot just talking about it.
If one "Mom and Pop" farmer decides to do something stupid that harms those that eat their food, the damage done is small. If one mega corporation decides to do something stupid that harms those that eat their food, the effect is potentially devastating.
If a disease develops that attacks the crop of one "Mom and Pop" farmer's fields, the effect may be limited to their fields and not their neighbors' fields as well. If a disease develops that attacks the crop of one mega corporation's fields, the effect is likely to be disastrous as they are likely using the same strain to maximize production and profits.
Those are the risks. If a global communications network fails, ya it'll suck but we'll deal. If the global food supply collapses while under the care of one corporation... who will be left alive to deal with the fallout?
Today, it's those 'new toys'. Back in history, it was 'divine birthright'. The tools have changed. The mentality hasn't, not for a very very long time.
..., which would be reasonable basis to detain him for long enough to determine that he was just being an eccentric PITA, which is not a crime.
Not a crime yet. Note, what he did probably might get him charges of public indecency, disturbing the peace, and my favorite, failure to comply. I just wonder when we get responsibility for one's actions on the authority's side. They push responsibility on the citizenry via the laws, but if they wrongfully detain anyone, 'oops' (if that) and moving on.
I didn't say that since nature does it, it's ok if we do it too. You must have missed the part where I said '... and that we'd all like to see them performed as little as possible.' I'm all for being responsible. I have been myself, and only had a child when I was darn well good and ready for it (if one can ever be truly ready for it). Don't use abortion unless it is a last resort. Just the same, it may be necessary to do so. The whole point of mentioning the relatively high mortality rate is to illustrate how risky a process pregnancy is, not to make some inane relative comparison to validate abortion. Risky processes require flexibility in handling them with the most positive outcome possible. It won't always be possible to save every mother-to-be AND zygote/embryo/fetus. I seriously recommend you read up on ectopic pregnancies (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy). Those rare events are almost always fatal for someone, usually the fetus. It is nice to have a tool by which to address these kind of problems that doesn't involve accusations of murder or manslaughter attached.
To the point, my argument isn't a naturalistic fallacy, it is objective realism.
And I would tend to agree with that definition, as inaccurate as it sometimes is. The only point to make was that species boundaries are not clear cut lines. Sometimes, similar species can interbreed, something that distant species cannot do. It fudges the lines a little when capabilities like that are retained, flawed though they are. Divergence, therefor, allows for reintegration between differing strains until the traits become different enough that some fatal flaw occurs in the offspring (for example, sterility).
Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family
on
A Copyright Nightmare
·
· Score: 1
Personally, I'm not opposed to the providing for your children through inheritance. I do find it funny, though, that most people say you can improve your condition if you work hard, that those that have currently earned it all for themselves. That dismisses the notion of inheritance, about the benefits that brings, and about how much better off a child is when their parents are better off. An argument for a different day.
The problem with inheritance comes when you talk about ideas and culture. The content we experience, the world in which we live, shapes our culture and our lives. I learn how to sing Happy Birthday as a child, I'm going to carry tradition forward and teach my children how. Only problem is that.. oh ya, that oh so famous Happy Birthday song, so much a part of our culture, is copyrighted, and will be for quite some time (ref: http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp). With the rate the copyright extensions are going, 2030 is being optimistic for something of that nature to come to the public domain. That's just one example, a really obvious one, but it applies to most creative works.
The whole idea of copyright is a construct that we people made up. We wanted to give incentive for people to create works for us to enjoy, so we said 'you can have exclusive control over that work for a limited time'. That exclusive control includes the right to control when, how, and why it is copied. The one question that I have yet to have answered is this; How exactly do you provide incentive for a dead man to create more works for you to enjoy? Adding to that, what incentive is there to their children to create works if they've been given a money train they never had to work for?
If there is incentive for the children to continue their parent's legacy, it wouldn't stop just because their parent's work was in the public domain. They would have the same incentive as any other creator. They just wouldn't have a flow of money from something they didn't make. The only reason we have copyright extensions as far into the future as we do is thanks to corporations attempting to retain control of works long past. They have no care for providing into the public domain, only extracting works from it, told in new ways, that they can then copyright and profit from for a long time.
Slashdot Mirror
And you do know that most people that are 'rich' don't make the majority of their money bringing in income, right? They do it using investments and such, things that get taxed under this thing called 'Capital Gains'. That thing that used to be 15% of what you brought in that way. So what's the point of talking about what the marginal rate on income is when the biggest loophole you'll ever see is staring you in the face?
You can't invest your way entirely to prosperity, so this heavy incentive to invest seems foolhardy. Eventually, SOMEONE needs to make something useful.
I hope you're making a mistake in saying that patients don't make all the key decisions about health care, at least when it comes to their own care. See, most hospitals I've ever gone to have this big thing about consent. You must consent to care before it will be given. Sometimes that consent is pretty broadly written, but consent can be dialed back to only those things you actually consent to. To the point about whether they know what they're deciding or not, that doesn't matter from this standpoint because if they don't understand, the professional advising them should do their best to inform them the implications of what was found, what the outcomes are, and what can be done to treat it. That turns simple consent into 'informed consent', a term brandished about the profession.
The decision on what to do ultimately rests with the patient, as the patient must give consent for it. If you don't include consent into the mix for patient care, then you subjugate anyone with a 'medical ailment' to someone else's will and force on them something they may not want. Last I checked, we consider force in that instance to be wrong, with possible exceptions in times when consent cannot be obtained for people certified to be unable to give consent (incapacitated, mentally ill, etc). Even then, though, someone deemed responsible for that patient is asked instead, if available.
Issues about cost, payment and the like are irrelevant from the decision standpoint, and something that the hospital or medical professional can make sure the patient is able to pay, first, before costly treatments. If unable, the hospital, to my knowledge, does not have to provide care outside of ER scenarios.
Are you also anti-medicine, as that is a 'technical intrusion into matters of life and death'? No medicines, no splints for broken legs, no respirators, no dialysis machines, or anything of the sort. Or is your complaint with technical intrusions limited to the extreme ends, where it either ends a life or makes a new one?
This is basically how I see it too. While I'm on board with sexual offenses being some of the most violating forms of violence on others, it's being applied in places it doesn't belong, such as (without prior coercion) taking a nude picture of yourself should you be under age, at the most basic enforcement. Making the law ever stricter just ensures that you'll have a reason to compel compliance at best, and get the aggressor to live in fear.
Reform (something our justice system SHOULD be focused on) shouldn't be about living in fear, it's should be about not wanting to commit the acts again and feeling remorse for the acts committed. If you go to the extreme and tag them for life, you give no incentive to behave and every incentive to commit crimes again. This ultimately does not help build a better society.
To play Devil's Advocate for a moment... is there any particular need to give tax breaks for people needing to buy large vehicles for large families? Do we give tax breaks because large families consume a larger dollar figure in food too? Or is it just the cost of having a large family?
I'm not picking one side or the other, but the notion that the large families NEED tax breaks because it costs more seems off to me.
I always thought prohibition went back to moral puritans that felt that alcohol was somehow the Devil's work and needed to be legislated away. I don't recall it was something women as a gender had any vested interest in enacting. Either way, that moral experiment failed horribly, unless you love Nascar, and we're back to enjoying whatever mind-altering liquid refreshment we like (almost).
Isn't that equivalent to the answer of 'If you don't want Windows SmartScreen to tell Microsoft about your installed apps, go into Privacy and turn it off.'?
It would seem to me that the point the parent was making is that Chrome's data reporting habits and this new one in Windows 8 are effectively the same. Both are enabled by default, and both report data back to their 'owners'. That both have an 'opt out' to turn them off really doesn't differentiate or describe either one as awesome with regards to privacy.
But.... Taco Bell was the only restaurant to survive the Franchise Wars. Now all restaurants are Taco Bell.
Why stick to religion on that one. For over 100 years, the United States didn't consider women citizens either. It wasn't until the 20th century that they were even allowed to vote. Seems like all these kinds of folks are trying to do is return us to the 'less complicated' days when women were more like property and less like human beings.
Do you get to control what you create at a workplace? Your employer gives you money to do work with and you use it to create something. Do you then get ownership of that creation, despite the fact that it was funded from your employer? A bit disingenuous, don't you think?
In other words, there is precedent for the person or entity funding a project to retain ownership of it despite it being created by another party.
Instead of, oh, I don't know, simply implementing a rate limit to the number of patches that are allowed to be deployed to consoles. One makes you money, the other accomplishes the same task, but there's no money involved. No shocker which one the business goes for.
What's the point of certification of your game for a 5 figure fee if they at least don't provide SOMETHING useful other than a little sticker that says "I approve this game"?
Plants consume CO2 and O2 for different reasons, photosynthesis and cellular respiration. If you watch atmospheric levels of CO2, they dip and rise in response to the seasons. The image from wikipedia below kind of shows this trend. The red line is average CO2 levels, the grey one is the more accurate one that responds to seasons. See, while plants sequester CO2 during photosynthesis, deciduous trees lose a lot of plant matter at the end of the growing season that rots, releasing CO2 back into the air during the fall and winter months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
You're confusing science with something else, I think. Going back to the parent, the skeptics need to disprove one of several reliably tested things, that 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, 2) atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing, and 3) Man is dumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. The conclusion from these simple statements is that temperatures will increase because of man's contribution. There has been a body of work already indicating these three criteria already exist. Predictions based on these criteria may be inaccurate or may be incomplete due to other forces at work not included in the model, but that doesn't make them wrong for what we know.
Skeptics may disagree with the recommended actions and they may disagree on the predictions based on the gathered evidence, but to refute the science behind the prediction, skeptics need to provide the evidence to the contrary. It also helps if they also can follow the scientific theory and come to a conclusion of their own. Bonus points for including other scientific works (even the work they're trying to refute) in their research. Skeptics seem to have a vested interest in the status quo. They don't get to push off the burden of responsibility on others just to maintain it. If there IS evidence to the contrary, we ALL benefit from knowing about it, and it is in their best interest to get it published. It would go a long way to holding up their argument.
Simply saying "I don't believe you or your conclusions about the future" is not a valid scientific rebuttal. It is laziness at it's finest and the sign of a closed mind.
You're absolutely right. Those are people, and the people have rights to free speech. Can a corporation sign a petition, or do the constituents sign the petition? When a corporation does sign or say something, does it do it on its own, or does it use a proxy... perhaps an authorized representative of the human species to do it instead? Nothing says that you cannot collectively group together and have your voices heard. Hell, that's what a petition IS, is a collective group of people standing together on the same idea. What you should not be able to do is say "We are and we get one extra voice because the right of the corporation to be heard is just as important as the right of the people." People can argue on behalf of corporate interests, but it is the people speaking, NOT the corporation.
What makes me laugh the most, though, is that you held this idea that "corporate speech" is somehow the weakest form. Tell me again how ineffective corporate lobbying is against constituent lobbying in US politics?
You know, it could just be that THIS property (ie: music) is deemed to have little enough value that owning it just isn't worth the value they want for it, arguments about burden aside. There's no amount of availability or free that could make me want to own an Bieber album, for instance. To take the commentary on current music listening habits and extract it to the very general 'we don't want to own, we want convenience in all things' and 'we want castration because we don't want to make the choice' is just a really bad argument.
Because it can't work. Because we can't go faster than the speed of sound? Because it can't be true that we orbit the sun? Those sound like someone closing the book and dismissing a possibility before determining whether or not it can be done. Any scientist I would consider worth their salt would say instead "We have not yet found evidence to believe that such a process exists" or something similar. It's similar to the idea that we can't go faster than the speed of light, AND YET, someone's hypothesizing suggests that it may be possible globally while not doing so locally (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive). Obviously, we lack evidence that it can be done, but making a blanket statement of "can't" dismisses a possibility out of hand without any good reason why not. Humans have been the masters of doing what "can't" be done, when we figured out how.
So no, "because it can't work" isn't a valid way to disprove a scientific claim. It's a small-minded way to say "I don't believe you."
Cute, but incomplete. We've also found that by enticement, we often get far more willing and creative participation than we could have obtained via force. Or, we would if we weren't all sitting on Slashdot just talking about it.
Minecraft animals do this now. The monsters just want your brainz.
If one "Mom and Pop" farmer decides to do something stupid that harms those that eat their food, the damage done is small.
If one mega corporation decides to do something stupid that harms those that eat their food, the effect is potentially devastating.
If a disease develops that attacks the crop of one "Mom and Pop" farmer's fields, the effect may be limited to their fields and not their neighbors' fields as well.
If a disease develops that attacks the crop of one mega corporation's fields, the effect is likely to be disastrous as they are likely using the same strain to maximize production and profits.
Those are the risks. If a global communications network fails, ya it'll suck but we'll deal. If the global food supply collapses while under the care of one corporation... who will be left alive to deal with the fallout?
Today, it's those 'new toys'. Back in history, it was 'divine birthright'. The tools have changed. The mentality hasn't, not for a very very long time.
..., which would be reasonable basis to detain him for long enough to determine that he was just being an eccentric PITA, which is not a crime.
Not a crime yet. Note, what he did probably might get him charges of public indecency, disturbing the peace, and my favorite, failure to comply. I just wonder when we get responsibility for one's actions on the authority's side. They push responsibility on the citizenry via the laws, but if they wrongfully detain anyone, 'oops' (if that) and moving on.
I didn't say that since nature does it, it's ok if we do it too. You must have missed the part where I said '... and that we'd all like to see them performed as little as possible.' I'm all for being responsible. I have been myself, and only had a child when I was darn well good and ready for it (if one can ever be truly ready for it). Don't use abortion unless it is a last resort. Just the same, it may be necessary to do so. The whole point of mentioning the relatively high mortality rate is to illustrate how risky a process pregnancy is, not to make some inane relative comparison to validate abortion. Risky processes require flexibility in handling them with the most positive outcome possible. It won't always be possible to save every mother-to-be AND zygote/embryo/fetus. I seriously recommend you read up on ectopic pregnancies (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy). Those rare events are almost always fatal for someone, usually the fetus. It is nice to have a tool by which to address these kind of problems that doesn't involve accusations of murder or manslaughter attached.
To the point, my argument isn't a naturalistic fallacy, it is objective realism.
And I would tend to agree with that definition, as inaccurate as it sometimes is. The only point to make was that species boundaries are not clear cut lines. Sometimes, similar species can interbreed, something that distant species cannot do. It fudges the lines a little when capabilities like that are retained, flawed though they are. Divergence, therefor, allows for reintegration between differing strains until the traits become different enough that some fatal flaw occurs in the offspring (for example, sterility).
Personally, I'm not opposed to the providing for your children through inheritance. I do find it funny, though, that most people say you can improve your condition if you work hard, that those that have currently earned it all for themselves. That dismisses the notion of inheritance, about the benefits that brings, and about how much better off a child is when their parents are better off. An argument for a different day.
The problem with inheritance comes when you talk about ideas and culture. The content we experience, the world in which we live, shapes our culture and our lives. I learn how to sing Happy Birthday as a child, I'm going to carry tradition forward and teach my children how. Only problem is that.. oh ya, that oh so famous Happy Birthday song, so much a part of our culture, is copyrighted, and will be for quite some time (ref: http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp). With the rate the copyright extensions are going, 2030 is being optimistic for something of that nature to come to the public domain. That's just one example, a really obvious one, but it applies to most creative works.
The whole idea of copyright is a construct that we people made up. We wanted to give incentive for people to create works for us to enjoy, so we said 'you can have exclusive control over that work for a limited time'. That exclusive control includes the right to control when, how, and why it is copied. The one question that I have yet to have answered is this; How exactly do you provide incentive for a dead man to create more works for you to enjoy? Adding to that, what incentive is there to their children to create works if they've been given a money train they never had to work for?
If there is incentive for the children to continue their parent's legacy, it wouldn't stop just because their parent's work was in the public domain. They would have the same incentive as any other creator. They just wouldn't have a flow of money from something they didn't make. The only reason we have copyright extensions as far into the future as we do is thanks to corporations attempting to retain control of works long past. They have no care for providing into the public domain, only extracting works from it, told in new ways, that they can then copyright and profit from for a long time.