The argument takes on one of various semantical forms:
In the classical form, the arguer suggests that making a move in a particular direction starts something on a path down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it will continue to slide in the same direction (the arguer usually sees the direction as a negative direction, hence the "sliding downwards" metaphor).
Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid. The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established.
so listen up nerd, because nobody should have to tell you this: other people are never referring to the fallacy, they are always referring to the metaphor that if you give in to temptation it can take you over. the one called classical form above. the metaphor doesn't claim that you will slide, as the fallacy does. it just says that staying on solid footing while making the choice in question is difficult because it's slippery (too easy to continue making bad decisions). smoking crack your first time doesn't mean you'll wind up sucking dick for it, but the addiction factor makes it a slippery slope. get it?
the fallacy was invented by a moron just like yourself simply for the purpose of derailing a conversation on points of minutiae and irrelevance (much like grammar nazis) instead of bothering to pay attention to the conversation. any ability you had to comprehend the conversation was eroded by your analysis paralysis.
For me privacy is that only people I know can link my name to what I do (job, hobbies, friends, purchases, etc.).
and yeah, being able to buy your purchase history will allow me to link your name to purchases with datetime and location, which i can then use to infer your friends, which i can then use to infer your job and hobbies.... but i'll probably have other uses for that info than the short list of things you're worried about.
sure until some asshole decides to broadcast advocacy for terrorism from his ham radio (don't need al qaeda for this, a right-wing anti-abortion nut will do fine), and the anti-abortion clinic is close to your library. so you, the innocent ham radio operator, all of a sudden fit the description of a domestic terrorist due to information being available that would otherwise have required warrants to collect, meaning the police would have had to have an actual rational reason for investigating you (e.g. subscribing to Right-Wing Psycho monthly).
the fallacy in your reasoning is that your situation, and other situations outside your knowledge or control, will remain the same as they are and never introduce a scenario where the benign information you don't care about is used against you. it can and it will happen to someone. maybe not you, but that's like saying hey i'm not jewish so hitler never came for my people, right?
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
The second obvious idea is to sell that data to governments [cnn.com] to circumvent constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
exactly what i was thinking. need a warrant to collect information? forget about it! just buy it from the bank. even better for the banks, when they want to get to someone they don't even need to use the law. political candidate X spent how much money on [insert popular vice here]?
“During our conscious hours, most can hide what they have become,” according to a presentation delivered to the Uniformed Services Academy of Family Physicians, a nonprofit group.
What they've become?!? Shouldn't we address that instead? What do they mean, "what they've become?"
we should create an anti-social network. we all know people sign up for stupid shit blindly, so let them sign up for the anti-social network. upon signing in, all you will see is the list of all members' email addresses and passwords, and any corresponding facebook data that can be accessed by matching email/passwords (since we all know the majority of people use one password for everything). we'll place links to the most popular webmail and online banking services on each record displayed, with the added convenience of auto-signing them in. fuck privacy, right?
the kinds of machines that use other machines instead of humans to service and power them for longer than a year. one hand washes the other, as the saying goes.
idk either but i'm guessing the clocks on the gps satellites, re: how they run faster than time on the surface of earth and adjust the times they send back to us. am i close?
getting an atheist candidate would be no different than a religious one. you are not guaranteed serious, rational behavior. instead of pointing to a group and saying we need one of these for a candidate, we should look at people on their merits. there are mormons, and other christians, and muslims, and jews, and other religious types who may believe supernatural things that you believe are ridiculous, but if they can demonstrate making decisions without these things being a heavy influence on them, then they would make good candidates.
it is just as silly and irrational to think that finding an atheist candidate is the cure to fundamentalist religious candidates. atheists are just as locked into a belief system they can't prove as much as almost anyone else, they are not nihilists.
loving other people as much as yourself is rather bullshit. people run the gamut of insanity, and most people subjected to advertising have a tough time truly loving themselves. there really ought to be a measurable standard by which you treat people, not just as badly as you feel about yourself. the old laws had a system for this, flawed though they were.
and learn what your kids are learning. most kids are learning stuff in the 4th grade that you've already forgotten. high schoolers are doing higher math than a lot of us do in our daily jobs. don't do your kids' homework for them, do it with them. going to PTA meetings is great but too many parents go just to bitch at their kids' teachers and use it as a forum to demand entitlements. what nobody seems to teach today, in schools or at home, is personal responsibility, family responsibility, and social responsibility.
they are necessary for consuming documents in a manner in which html was not designed, which happens to be what consumers have been demanding. for instance, viewing several different blocks of dynamic content in a page without changing the URL or making a synchronous page request. i sometimes wonder if i'm the only one who realizes that javascript, css, flash, and server-side languages are all just ways of hacking the browser to make web sites act more like desktop apps. people want web sites to behave in ways the browser was never intended to allow. it's all a hack. the smartphone app model is the only thing that actually resembles how people want to use the web, and yet it's only on the smallest personal computers we can buy. stupid stupid stupid. and no, html5 will not help, or replace flash, in its current state. wishful thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
The argument takes on one of various semantical forms:
In the classical form, the arguer suggests that making a move in a particular direction starts something on a path down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it will continue to slide in the same direction (the arguer usually sees the direction as a negative direction, hence the "sliding downwards" metaphor).
Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid. The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established.
so listen up nerd, because nobody should have to tell you this: other people are never referring to the fallacy, they are always referring to the metaphor that if you give in to temptation it can take you over. the one called classical form above. the metaphor doesn't claim that you will slide, as the fallacy does. it just says that staying on solid footing while making the choice in question is difficult because it's slippery (too easy to continue making bad decisions). smoking crack your first time doesn't mean you'll wind up sucking dick for it, but the addiction factor makes it a slippery slope. get it?
the fallacy was invented by a moron just like yourself simply for the purpose of derailing a conversation on points of minutiae and irrelevance (much like grammar nazis) instead of bothering to pay attention to the conversation. any ability you had to comprehend the conversation was eroded by your analysis paralysis.
For me privacy is that only people I know can link my name to what I do (job, hobbies, friends, purchases, etc.).
and yeah, being able to buy your purchase history will allow me to link your name to purchases with datetime and location, which i can then use to infer your friends, which i can then use to infer your job and hobbies.... but i'll probably have other uses for that info than the short list of things you're worried about.
sure until some asshole decides to broadcast advocacy for terrorism from his ham radio (don't need al qaeda for this, a right-wing anti-abortion nut will do fine), and the anti-abortion clinic is close to your library. so you, the innocent ham radio operator, all of a sudden fit the description of a domestic terrorist due to information being available that would otherwise have required warrants to collect, meaning the police would have had to have an actual rational reason for investigating you (e.g. subscribing to Right-Wing Psycho monthly).
the fallacy in your reasoning is that your situation, and other situations outside your knowledge or control, will remain the same as they are and never introduce a scenario where the benign information you don't care about is used against you. it can and it will happen to someone. maybe not you, but that's like saying hey i'm not jewish so hitler never came for my people, right?
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
The second obvious idea is to sell that data to governments [cnn.com] to circumvent constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
exactly what i was thinking. need a warrant to collect information? forget about it! just buy it from the bank. even better for the banks, when they want to get to someone they don't even need to use the law. political candidate X spent how much money on [insert popular vice here]?
“During our conscious hours, most can hide what they have become,” according to a presentation delivered to the Uniformed Services Academy of Family Physicians, a nonprofit group.
What they've become?!? Shouldn't we address that instead? What do they mean, "what they've become?"
avg speed limit in UK is 113km/h or ~70mph. driving 5 miles/hour over the limit is not excessive, reckless, nor likely to get you pulled over.
So is her career dependent on lies?
isn't yours?
so, how does that buick taste?
it's going to be called the iSuck
we should create an anti-social network. we all know people sign up for stupid shit blindly, so let them sign up for the anti-social network. upon signing in, all you will see is the list of all members' email addresses and passwords, and any corresponding facebook data that can be accessed by matching email/passwords (since we all know the majority of people use one password for everything). we'll place links to the most popular webmail and online banking services on each record displayed, with the added convenience of auto-signing them in. fuck privacy, right?
QED
the kinds of machines that use other machines instead of humans to service and power them for longer than a year. one hand washes the other, as the saying goes.
or oktoberfest, or christmas even
gomer pyle...
hehe touché
idk either but i'm guessing the clocks on the gps satellites, re: how they run faster than time on the surface of earth and adjust the times they send back to us. am i close?
they trade us awesome hockey players. lawyered
fuck rule 10, i'm more interested in rule 34. where's the porn of these security vulnerabilities?
you're using the wrong tool for the job, obviously. that's like asking why the freeway can't have wider lanes for your tractor.
ok. try DMT or LSD. good to go, hooah
getting an atheist candidate would be no different than a religious one. you are not guaranteed serious, rational behavior. instead of pointing to a group and saying we need one of these for a candidate, we should look at people on their merits. there are mormons, and other christians, and muslims, and jews, and other religious types who may believe supernatural things that you believe are ridiculous, but if they can demonstrate making decisions without these things being a heavy influence on them, then they would make good candidates.
it is just as silly and irrational to think that finding an atheist candidate is the cure to fundamentalist religious candidates. atheists are just as locked into a belief system they can't prove as much as almost anyone else, they are not nihilists.
great name for a rock band: Gay Bacon
loving other people as much as yourself is rather bullshit. people run the gamut of insanity, and most people subjected to advertising have a tough time truly loving themselves. there really ought to be a measurable standard by which you treat people, not just as badly as you feel about yourself. the old laws had a system for this, flawed though they were.
and learn what your kids are learning. most kids are learning stuff in the 4th grade that you've already forgotten. high schoolers are doing higher math than a lot of us do in our daily jobs. don't do your kids' homework for them, do it with them. going to PTA meetings is great but too many parents go just to bitch at their kids' teachers and use it as a forum to demand entitlements. what nobody seems to teach today, in schools or at home, is personal responsibility, family responsibility, and social responsibility.
they are necessary for consuming documents in a manner in which html was not designed, which happens to be what consumers have been demanding. for instance, viewing several different blocks of dynamic content in a page without changing the URL or making a synchronous page request. i sometimes wonder if i'm the only one who realizes that javascript, css, flash, and server-side languages are all just ways of hacking the browser to make web sites act more like desktop apps. people want web sites to behave in ways the browser was never intended to allow. it's all a hack. the smartphone app model is the only thing that actually resembles how people want to use the web, and yet it's only on the smallest personal computers we can buy. stupid stupid stupid. and no, html5 will not help, or replace flash, in its current state. wishful thinking.