A warrant is fine, an assault is not. How about putting the assault team in a van outside while two friendly officers knock on the door to peacefully ask the guy to step outside? That way you'd also get very good statistics about when you actually need assault teams, as every time they stay in the van is a time that you didn't actually need them.
Maybe it's about having police assault teams standing around with nothing to do. Perhaps what they do is assign the 5 teams they've got (or whatever the number) to the 5 arrests they've got that day that sound the most odious, like child porn. In big organizations it's use your resources or lose them, perhaps this is an example of that. It is just too bad if the number of arrests that warrant an full on police assault is less than the number of teams available. It might also be that they use these weak targets to train new recruits who then won't die in a fire fight if they screw up. As long as they only do that with pedophiles and the kind, they aren't likely to get in trouble with the public.
Biological legs get broken too, and I think I'd rather have an interchangeable leg with a pain cut-off (when they get mild pain and touch sensation working) get broken than have a biological one broken. I'll give you that biological legs rarely get stolen, though.
It's ridiculous to expect individual companies or even people to control how their power gets generated and how much or little pollution that produces. In most cases this isn't even information that is available - what you often get are feel-good measures that don't even necessarily do anything for the environment. The only way pollution will decrease is by putting a price to pollution that is high enough that if people go by their wallet, they will automatically be green. Everyone already pays attention to prices so it is a 1-step solution that is guaranteed to work - there is no problem in coming up with a scheme for reducing emissions. The real problem is that the world wants to talk about reducing CO2 emissions without actually doing so because it is expensive - it is all about feel-good measures. Going after internet companies or even gas companies in particular for a society-chosen problem is asinine. It's not about them there polluters (who are not you), it's about your wallet, whomever and wherever you are. Greenpeace is seriously confusing the issue by talking about particular sectors as though it is not the whole of society who has decided that pollution in the form of CO2 is free of charge.
I'm not saying that having control is better, I'm saying that we humans are wired to think that having control is better even when it isn't. So we prefer a larger risk that we can somewhat control to a smaller risk that we can't control.
I'm not absolving her of responsibility because the robber is to blame - they could both be to blame 100%. One person being responsible does not lessen the responsibility of another. What I'm actually saying is that she is to blame, but not for the same thing as the robber. The robber is to blame for committing robbery. The woman is to blame for having taken the risk of being robbed. That is very different from blaming her for the robbery itself. For example any amount of blame that she deserves are also deserved by everyone who did the same thing or took a similar risk but didn't get unlucky the way she did. If she deserved to get robbed, then all of those other people also deserved it, in which case it would be justice to go around and rob all of them since they deserved it - justice is giving people what they deserve. Anyone can see that that is not justice, and therefore we must conclude that she was not responsible for the robbery. She was responsible for taking a risk of being robbed - her responsibility is no more than that of anyone else who takes a similar risk without harm. I don't think those people now deserve to be robbed, and therefore neither did she.
You don't even know that she was aware that she was in a risky situation, and even if she did, all you can say is that she could have expended effort to reduce her risk. But we can all expend effort to reduce our risk. For example we can refrain from driving cars and going outside. Perhaps the risk she took was greater than the risks we all rutinely take, but I doubt it, and even if it was, you don't really know that. Your desire to paint her as "careless" and leave it at that is exactly the Just World Fallacy.
The point you are making is the point I was making. Blame does not sum to 100%. I added that blame for taking a risk for X to happen is different from blame for actively doing X.
The particular brand of bullshit in this kind of thinking is that blaming one person somehow absolves other people from blame and also that risks you have some measure of control over are somehow better than similar risks that you don't control. This is why people fear planes (no control) over cars (full control) even though cars are more dangerous. The robber was responsible for his actions, and he becomes no less or more responsible because his victim was taking a risk. She was not to blame for being robbed, she was responsible for taking a risk of being robbed - those are two completely different things. Anyone who tells you they never take unnecessary risks are either saying something that isn't true or they are mentally ill and stay in their padded room all day. Blaming people for taking risks is a convenience, not a respectable moral standpoint - we all take risks.
Birth rates are high because of high child mortality and no social safety net at old age: The parents need to have enough children to be certain that some children will survive to support them when they get old, because no one else will be around to do it. Children work on the farm so they are not a drain on resources in the same way they would be to you. The problem is a collective one so blaming each individual Ethiopian for it is asinine. Reduce child mortality to fix the issue. Nutrition is part of reducing child mortality.
How does farming in a large-scale way increase food prices? Seems to me large-scale farming would be out-competed by small-scale farming in the case, but the opposite is the case.
The idea is that we should proceed as if they didn't exist because they are unknowable (as opposed to just unknown) - otherwise I'd be sitting in the corner in fear of the invisible murderer that may be looking to kill me when I get out of the corner. This can be summed up as "they don't exist" because the consequence is the same, in fact you can argue that "X doesn't exist" is equivalent to "X is unknowable" because you can't ever really know that something doesn't exist, so if you are going to allow that unknowables may exist and we should draw consequences from that fact, then you can never truthfully utter the words "X does not exist" for any X at all.
The argument being made is that there could be beneficial effects of the TSA that can never be measured, and because they can never be measured, no one can know that we are not in fact benefiting from those effects. My problem with this kind of argument is that it applies to anything. If this is a valid form of argumentation, then I can claim that I may be responsible for single-handedly fighting terror by getting a driver's license (or indeed by any action at all that I take or don't take). You can highly suspect that that is not the case, but you can never actually prove that no one has been deterred from performing terror because they are afraid I'll run them over. It doesn't matter if it makes sense - you can't prove I'm wrong (because it's impossible for anyone to ever prove that I'm wrong), therefore you have to take my argument seriously. Fortunately, that's not the way it works, and that is why citing unknowable beneficial effects without any corroborating evidence is not a valid argument.
Non-competes can be a necessary harm to inflict on employees. For those rare cases, the company should be required to pay the employee the same salary and benefits for the duration of the non-compete. Too expensive? Well that is the exact harm the employee is being subjected to so if that is too expensive then a non-compete isn't really appropriate, now it is. The employee can actually be harmed beyond this amount if his skills are deemed to have become out of date from not having done work in his field or if he has to turn down a better job than the one he had or if he develops a depression or other ailment from his forced inaction.
Well, I think you can't really sayt that the TSA hasn't stopped attacks, you can say it has never caught. Who knows wether some attack was cancelled because of it?
That makes it as effective as praying for no more attacks. Who knows if it might work? I also notice that there has been no more attacks since I got a driver's license. Maybe the terrorists are afraid that I'll run them over. That must be it - or at least you can't know that it isn't... or maybe there is something wrong with this kind of argument?
Cover the US in mirrors and you'd have the whole Earth powered a few times over. There is no physics problem. The only thing that matters is the externality-adjusted cost of electricity and how you compensate for swings in power generation on cloudy days. It's good for running ACs, heat in winter not so much.
Once upon a time people thought color was a gimmick too. A black and white movie conveys pretty much as much information in terms of what is going on as a color movie does. It adds nothing to the plot. What's the advantage? It's more immersive because you don't have to get past the fact that the movie looks different from the real world - the real world is in color. People who had only ever seen black and white didn't see the point. Today's gimmick is tomorrow's matter of course.
The idea is to get you pissed at the +1 people in particular if they don't perform. It's collective punishment of the whole company to pressure the +1 group.
And neither has Apple. Come on, we've talked about the 4 mechanisms in detail.
You've stated it many times that you don't view it like that, but that's different from it actually not being like that. All the by-passes for their system you've mentioned require either prior permission from Apple or it requires doing something with your iPhone that Apple has endeavored to make it not possible to do - it's just that they failed.
The difficulty has always been weapons-grade uranium (or plutonium).
Perhaps there is some subtle critical issue that you need to bang out before you can make it work. If so, it would be very convenient if that wasn't known, as then every state who tries have a chance to get it wrong the first time, giving the rest of the world warning about what they are doing. From that perspective, perhaps this guy is actually a government plant whose job it is to describe the process in a way that leads the mind not to realize the problem.
It is true that Microsoft could put a system in place tomorrow via Windows Update to prevent me from installing third party software without paying them, however Microsoft has not actually done so. Apple has put such a system in place, they are just allowing certain people to get around that system for a fee. I don't know much about the enterprise SDK, but I very much doubt that Google could buy one and then just like that set up a competing app-store for the iPhone, so an enterprise SDK can't grant the same powers as Apple has. I'm also sure that Apple has the ability to revoke previously granted keys in updates to the OS. You don't perceive the difference because you focus on the practicality of what you can do today. Though even in that perspective I don't see that Apple and Microsoft are the same. I don't need to pay Microsoft a fee or be approved by Microsoft to write software for Windows.
I think it's still true that Apple becomes the sole authority who decides what goes on an iPhone. It is just that, at this time, they are permissive about what they allow when given 100$ for the privilege. It's a bit like a king in power who currently does whatever an elected council asks him to - as long as the king plays ball it's the same thing as a democracy, but at any time that could change. The FSF is not interested in practicality right now, they are interested in what a system could be used for at some point.
I see you have a more nuanced view of the topic than I would have guessed.
I'm wondering how it is not true that "iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on everyone's phones". As I understand it, Apple is free to deny you developer status and then you can't obtain an SDK from them, and if you want an SDK you do have to pay a tax (well, fee). They do in fact ban open source or at least GPL 3 software from the iPhone appstore, and that means that except for the iPhones of developers who have been blessed by Apple, Apple is the sole authority on what programs is allowed on an iPhone. Jailbreaking solves these issues, but as far as I know Apple is doing their best to make jailbreaking not possible, so according to Apple's wishes there would be no jailbreaking. It is clearly written in a pointed way, but is it significantly inaccurate?
You are not talking about insurance then. Insurance is paying to offset your own actual predictable risk. You are talking about socialized medicine. That's great, but stop calling it "insurance" and start supporting what you actually believe in. As long as you call it insurance, your cause will be weak because you are championing something that actually is completely unrelated to that which you desire.
Slashdot Mirror
A warrant is fine, an assault is not. How about putting the assault team in a van outside while two friendly officers knock on the door to peacefully ask the guy to step outside? That way you'd also get very good statistics about when you actually need assault teams, as every time they stay in the van is a time that you didn't actually need them.
With the glory of the internet, this story will never go away on Google.
Maybe it's about having police assault teams standing around with nothing to do. Perhaps what they do is assign the 5 teams they've got (or whatever the number) to the 5 arrests they've got that day that sound the most odious, like child porn. In big organizations it's use your resources or lose them, perhaps this is an example of that. It is just too bad if the number of arrests that warrant an full on police assault is less than the number of teams available. It might also be that they use these weak targets to train new recruits who then won't die in a fire fight if they screw up. As long as they only do that with pedophiles and the kind, they aren't likely to get in trouble with the public.
Biological legs get broken too, and I think I'd rather have an interchangeable leg with a pain cut-off (when they get mild pain and touch sensation working) get broken than have a biological one broken. I'll give you that biological legs rarely get stolen, though.
It's ridiculous to expect individual companies or even people to control how their power gets generated and how much or little pollution that produces. In most cases this isn't even information that is available - what you often get are feel-good measures that don't even necessarily do anything for the environment. The only way pollution will decrease is by putting a price to pollution that is high enough that if people go by their wallet, they will automatically be green. Everyone already pays attention to prices so it is a 1-step solution that is guaranteed to work - there is no problem in coming up with a scheme for reducing emissions. The real problem is that the world wants to talk about reducing CO2 emissions without actually doing so because it is expensive - it is all about feel-good measures. Going after internet companies or even gas companies in particular for a society-chosen problem is asinine. It's not about them there polluters (who are not you), it's about your wallet, whomever and wherever you are. Greenpeace is seriously confusing the issue by talking about particular sectors as though it is not the whole of society who has decided that pollution in the form of CO2 is free of charge.
The single player campaign already has units you can't get in multiplayer.
I wonder if you read the page on the just world fallacy. It's consequence of blaming the victim is exactly what you are explaining.
I'm not saying that having control is better, I'm saying that we humans are wired to think that having control is better even when it isn't. So we prefer a larger risk that we can somewhat control to a smaller risk that we can't control.
I'm not absolving her of responsibility because the robber is to blame - they could both be to blame 100%. One person being responsible does not lessen the responsibility of another. What I'm actually saying is that she is to blame, but not for the same thing as the robber. The robber is to blame for committing robbery. The woman is to blame for having taken the risk of being robbed. That is very different from blaming her for the robbery itself. For example any amount of blame that she deserves are also deserved by everyone who did the same thing or took a similar risk but didn't get unlucky the way she did. If she deserved to get robbed, then all of those other people also deserved it, in which case it would be justice to go around and rob all of them since they deserved it - justice is giving people what they deserve. Anyone can see that that is not justice, and therefore we must conclude that she was not responsible for the robbery. She was responsible for taking a risk of being robbed - her responsibility is no more than that of anyone else who takes a similar risk without harm. I don't think those people now deserve to be robbed, and therefore neither did she.
You don't even know that she was aware that she was in a risky situation, and even if she did, all you can say is that she could have expended effort to reduce her risk. But we can all expend effort to reduce our risk. For example we can refrain from driving cars and going outside. Perhaps the risk she took was greater than the risks we all rutinely take, but I doubt it, and even if it was, you don't really know that. Your desire to paint her as "careless" and leave it at that is exactly the Just World Fallacy.
The point you are making is the point I was making. Blame does not sum to 100%. I added that blame for taking a risk for X to happen is different from blame for actively doing X.
The particular brand of bullshit in this kind of thinking is that blaming one person somehow absolves other people from blame and also that risks you have some measure of control over are somehow better than similar risks that you don't control. This is why people fear planes (no control) over cars (full control) even though cars are more dangerous. The robber was responsible for his actions, and he becomes no less or more responsible because his victim was taking a risk. She was not to blame for being robbed, she was responsible for taking a risk of being robbed - those are two completely different things. Anyone who tells you they never take unnecessary risks are either saying something that isn't true or they are mentally ill and stay in their padded room all day. Blaming people for taking risks is a convenience, not a respectable moral standpoint - we all take risks.
Birth rates are high because of high child mortality and no social safety net at old age: The parents need to have enough children to be certain that some children will survive to support them when they get old, because no one else will be around to do it. Children work on the farm so they are not a drain on resources in the same way they would be to you. The problem is a collective one so blaming each individual Ethiopian for it is asinine. Reduce child mortality to fix the issue. Nutrition is part of reducing child mortality.
How does farming in a large-scale way increase food prices? Seems to me large-scale farming would be out-competed by small-scale farming in the case, but the opposite is the case.
The idea is that we should proceed as if they didn't exist because they are unknowable (as opposed to just unknown) - otherwise I'd be sitting in the corner in fear of the invisible murderer that may be looking to kill me when I get out of the corner. This can be summed up as "they don't exist" because the consequence is the same, in fact you can argue that "X doesn't exist" is equivalent to "X is unknowable" because you can't ever really know that something doesn't exist, so if you are going to allow that unknowables may exist and we should draw consequences from that fact, then you can never truthfully utter the words "X does not exist" for any X at all.
The argument being made is that there could be beneficial effects of the TSA that can never be measured, and because they can never be measured, no one can know that we are not in fact benefiting from those effects. My problem with this kind of argument is that it applies to anything. If this is a valid form of argumentation, then I can claim that I may be responsible for single-handedly fighting terror by getting a driver's license (or indeed by any action at all that I take or don't take). You can highly suspect that that is not the case, but you can never actually prove that no one has been deterred from performing terror because they are afraid I'll run them over. It doesn't matter if it makes sense - you can't prove I'm wrong (because it's impossible for anyone to ever prove that I'm wrong), therefore you have to take my argument seriously. Fortunately, that's not the way it works, and that is why citing unknowable beneficial effects without any corroborating evidence is not a valid argument.
Non-competes can be a necessary harm to inflict on employees. For those rare cases, the company should be required to pay the employee the same salary and benefits for the duration of the non-compete. Too expensive? Well that is the exact harm the employee is being subjected to so if that is too expensive then a non-compete isn't really appropriate, now it is. The employee can actually be harmed beyond this amount if his skills are deemed to have become out of date from not having done work in his field or if he has to turn down a better job than the one he had or if he develops a depression or other ailment from his forced inaction.
Well, I think you can't really sayt that the TSA hasn't stopped attacks, you can say it has never caught. Who knows wether some attack was cancelled because of it?
That makes it as effective as praying for no more attacks. Who knows if it might work? I also notice that there has been no more attacks since I got a driver's license. Maybe the terrorists are afraid that I'll run them over. That must be it - or at least you can't know that it isn't... or maybe there is something wrong with this kind of argument?
Cover the US in mirrors and you'd have the whole Earth powered a few times over. There is no physics problem. The only thing that matters is the externality-adjusted cost of electricity and how you compensate for swings in power generation on cloudy days. It's good for running ACs, heat in winter not so much.
Once upon a time people thought color was a gimmick too. A black and white movie conveys pretty much as much information in terms of what is going on as a color movie does. It adds nothing to the plot. What's the advantage? It's more immersive because you don't have to get past the fact that the movie looks different from the real world - the real world is in color. People who had only ever seen black and white didn't see the point. Today's gimmick is tomorrow's matter of course.
The idea is to get you pissed at the +1 people in particular if they don't perform. It's collective punishment of the whole company to pressure the +1 group.
And neither has Apple. Come on, we've talked about the 4 mechanisms in detail.
You've stated it many times that you don't view it like that, but that's different from it actually not being like that. All the by-passes for their system you've mentioned require either prior permission from Apple or it requires doing something with your iPhone that Apple has endeavored to make it not possible to do - it's just that they failed.
The difficulty has always been weapons-grade uranium (or plutonium).
Perhaps there is some subtle critical issue that you need to bang out before you can make it work. If so, it would be very convenient if that wasn't known, as then every state who tries have a chance to get it wrong the first time, giving the rest of the world warning about what they are doing. From that perspective, perhaps this guy is actually a government plant whose job it is to describe the process in a way that leads the mind not to realize the problem.
It is true that Microsoft could put a system in place tomorrow via Windows Update to prevent me from installing third party software without paying them, however Microsoft has not actually done so. Apple has put such a system in place, they are just allowing certain people to get around that system for a fee. I don't know much about the enterprise SDK, but I very much doubt that Google could buy one and then just like that set up a competing app-store for the iPhone, so an enterprise SDK can't grant the same powers as Apple has. I'm also sure that Apple has the ability to revoke previously granted keys in updates to the OS. You don't perceive the difference because you focus on the practicality of what you can do today. Though even in that perspective I don't see that Apple and Microsoft are the same. I don't need to pay Microsoft a fee or be approved by Microsoft to write software for Windows.
I think it's still true that Apple becomes the sole authority who decides what goes on an iPhone. It is just that, at this time, they are permissive about what they allow when given 100$ for the privilege. It's a bit like a king in power who currently does whatever an elected council asks him to - as long as the king plays ball it's the same thing as a democracy, but at any time that could change. The FSF is not interested in practicality right now, they are interested in what a system could be used for at some point.
I see you have a more nuanced view of the topic than I would have guessed.
I'm wondering how it is not true that "iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on everyone's phones". As I understand it, Apple is free to deny you developer status and then you can't obtain an SDK from them, and if you want an SDK you do have to pay a tax (well, fee). They do in fact ban open source or at least GPL 3 software from the iPhone appstore, and that means that except for the iPhones of developers who have been blessed by Apple, Apple is the sole authority on what programs is allowed on an iPhone. Jailbreaking solves these issues, but as far as I know Apple is doing their best to make jailbreaking not possible, so according to Apple's wishes there would be no jailbreaking. It is clearly written in a pointed way, but is it significantly inaccurate?
You are not talking about insurance then. Insurance is paying to offset your own actual predictable risk. You are talking about socialized medicine. That's great, but stop calling it "insurance" and start supporting what you actually believe in. As long as you call it insurance, your cause will be weak because you are championing something that actually is completely unrelated to that which you desire.