"1) P=NP?" P="BOB" NP="BOB" if P=NP then write("TRUE!")
"2) List and explain three one-way functions." Birth (just try to go back the other way) Sex (Well, this is kind of an while/endwhile or some other type of loop) Death (see Birth)
"3) List five rhymes for the word "orange"." Door Hinge Beer Binge Infringe Dope Syringe Spine twinge
No, it's also a fallacy when they make the claim that the argument holds better because they are an authority/expert.
That's inaccurate. Assuming you meant "because they are an authority/expert [in the field being debated]", it would be fallacious if they were to claim the argument were true BECAUSE they were an expert. 'Holds better' implies a "strengthens" an argument -- which it does.
Slashdot-car-analogy-alert! Example:
Given: I'm an expert in car maintenance.
Is a Fallacy:
I tell you that you need new shocks. You say "why". I say "Because I'm an expert".
Is not a Fallacy:
I tell you that you need new shocks. You say "why". I say "Because they look warn to me. This one is cracked and your tires are warn. Believe me, I'm an expert and seen this countless times.".
Explaination:
The argument 2nd argument DOES "holds better" coming from an expert. But it does not, by default make the argument (that new shocks are needed) "true" or make this argument a fallacy.
It's appeal to authority. And referring to an expert is *NOT* by definition a logical fallacy.
It's only a logical fallacy when the "authority" is not an "authority" on the subject being debated.
Example:
A statistician makes a claim that the mathematics being used by a climatologist are inaccurate, and the climatologist cites another climatologist (as an authority) who backs up his claim, THIS is an appeal to authority fallacy.
My understanding (someone correct me?) is that the Athenians offered him a choice between 1. admitting that he was in the wrong and then being exiled for life, or 2. drinking hemlock - had he not drunk it himself, he would have been forced
That's not accurate -- my memory of The Apology, while aged, I'm still pretty sure is spot on.
The way it worked was the the "accuser" selected a sentence then the "guilty" selected a sentence. Then "jury" would choose.
His prosecutor, Melitus, proposed death. Socrates first offered a reward for himself and family, thus insulting his "jury". He then offered an insulting small amount -- then his friends (Plato and Crito among them) got him to up the fine to something less insulting and promised they would cover it of Socrates couldn't. The jury then selected death (more so than found him guilty -- which means a number of people who voted him not-guilty voted him to die).
In the Crito, Crito made it clear that escape was common enough and the authorities didn't care as long as you lived in exile -- and Crito was concerned he'd be accused of being a bad friend for not helping Socrates escape -- and that no one would believe him if he claimed Socrates refused.
I'm sure if I'm misrepresenting this, someone will correct me, but I'm fairly sure I've nailed it.
Socrates doesn't offer a libation to the gods--he asks the jailer/executioner, but the jailer/executioner says there isn't enough.
Semantics. As far as I'm concerned, and in my reading, he made the offer. He didn't follow through based on the jailer's statement. The point was that one of his crimes was heresy (or at least impiety) and in more than one utterance, Socrates was shown to be quite pious and very conscious of the dictates of faith leading up to his death.
It's true that we can't safely distinguish the two. However the ideas, and indeed the character of Socrates portrayed in Plato's Apology, differs markedly from those in later works such as The Republic.
When reading the Phaedo, I can't help but believe I'm reading an eye witness account of the last hours of Socrates. And the Phaedo isn't considered one of his earlier works.
Socrates was "executed" for several crimes -- including heresy.
An argument can be made that Socrates caused himself to be sentenced to death by pissing off his jury -- essentially insulting them by saying his punishment should be to have himself, wife and kids should be taken care of for the rest of their lives. After pissing them off, his friends basically said "NONONO! He'll pay a fine! We'll cover it!" The prosecution offered death. The "jury" picked death.
Further, can it REALLY be called an "execution"? The Athenians' bent over backwards to let him escape. He refused. When the day came, he happily drank the poison -- even offering a bit to gods before drinking. I'd say it was more of voluntary martyrdom...
If you really want to stretch, every single one of us share some Hitlerian aspects.
And.... you just illustrated the point I made further up the thread where I said:...when "Hitler" and "fascist" is used by opposition party or opposition interests as often as it has the last 10-20 years by BOTH sides, it loses it's value as a dialectic tool and cheapens/subdues the horrors that WERE perpetrated by fascists/Nazis.
Hyperbole is a legitimate dialectic tool -- but more suited for literature.
However, when "Hitler" and "fascist" is used by opposition party or opposition interests as often as it has the last 10-20 years by BOTH sides, it loses it's value as a dialectic tool and cheapens/subdues the horrors that WERE perpetrated by fascists/Nazis.
As far as Hitler being compared to Napoleon by his contemporary media, I recall that Hitler was a fan of Napoleon (I remember seeing a few pics of him at Napoleons' tomb with his hat off). However, I believe (with a few exceptions) the comparisons of Hitler to Napoleon are mostly contemporary.
Still, the interpretation you give (which I feel is correct), doesn't seem to allow for the limiting of any weapons. In other words, it seems like it would allow average people to own nuclear weapons. This is clearly not a good idea.
I disagree. The right to arms is not absolute in a similar way as the right to free speach isn't absolute.
The real point is that there are those who think if it isn't mentioned in the constitution it isn't allowed (usually comes up with regard to drunk driving not being illegal, for some reason). Odd thing is the constitution doesn't say anything about cars at all - or airports, or television, or intarwebs...
Because it's not mentioned in the Constitution, it's usually left up to the States (at least that's the way it's supposed to work) -- which is why, using your example. driving is usually considered a privilege which can be revoked. I find it "odd" that someone would use the Constitution in an argument to prove driving drunk *IS* legal. You *MIGHT* make the argument that it's *Constitutional* in that it isn't violating the Constitution.
The bit about a "Well regulated militia", for one. Do you really think them thar injuns are going to attack?
On that, I would suggest reading up on what our Founder's meant. My favorite is Richard Henry Lee (Virginia): "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
I'd suggest also reading Federalist 184-188.
Or Patrick Henry (another Virginian): "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Note: I do not own a gun. I do not WANT to own a gun. I do not like guns *OR* their intended purpose. I, however, cannot argue against a reasonable argument (especially on Constitutional grounds) that personal possession of a gun is a *RIGHT*. It is a right I chose not to exercise.
For what I paid for a 3 bedroom, 1700 sq ft "fixer" home on 6000+ sq ft lot in 2005 in SoCal, I guess it could be called a "financial mansion" if not the physical space of one.
I just call it the "black hole sucking away my financial solvency".
Of course it does. It's their right if they want to sit on it and prevent anyone from seeing or hearing something which they hold the copyright. It's their right if they want to charge $100000 to let just YOU see it, but no one else in the world. Or if they want to sell DVDs or CDs of the material and not "give" away anything for free. It's their right.
The respect of rights is not transitive. You can ignore my rights when I'll ignore yours.
How can you not see that you are just trying to justify violating someone's rights? They hold the copyright and have set the rules. You have infringed on their rights. I don't see you having any moral high-ground when someone comes and violates YOUR rights.
Why not be honest? Say "Yup. I'm breaking the law. And I'm going to continue doing it until I'm caught and either arrested or sued -- otherwise, I don't give a rats-patootie about the copyright holder because me getting/watching a movie for free or getting/listening to music for free is more important to me than someone's rights!". But no... you cop out and give yourself the excuse "they aren't LOSING anything because I wouldn't have paid anyway". That's BS. If you didn't pay, you shouldn't have it. You HAVE it, so you should PAY.
And I can run traffic lights. And I can shoot people in public. And I can rob a bank. And I can write bad checks. And I can run people down with my car. And I can walk in to a 7-11 and rob it.
What do all these things (including yours) have in common? They are illegal.
Why should I feel any more guilty about downloading a movie than I do listening to a song at a party ?
Assuming you are listening to a purchased copy of this song at the party, the difference is that when you download it you can keep it and listen to it whenever you want (there is now an extra copy out there), and it was in violation of the copyright holders' rights. How can you not see this?
And since you seem to be OK with selectively choosing which rights of others you'll honor, would you mind if I selectively pick which of *YOUR* right that *I'LL* honor?
Here, those who share actually spend more on music than those who don't:
Just like to point out that the article is from 2002 -- discussing a study done in 2001. I would be interested to see if the trend continued as the internet became more main-stream. And does such trending translate to movie-ticket sales, dvd sales and TV Advertising dollars? I don't think so.
That said, does it really MATTER if they are spending more money on music or not? If the copyright holder doesn't want you to have something before you pay for it then it is well within their rights. And if you want to selectively ignore that right, can I selectively choose which rights of yours I'll honor?
Again, I'd like to point out that it is the one distributing the works who is infringing on these rights; that's why the law is written to target distributors, rather than consumers.
Is that really what you think? I think you are wrong (at least in the US). I also think if you actually look up copyright infringement, you'll see you are wrong.
You "copying is theft" types always seem to gloss over that detail.
Where did I say theft? I argued the the copyright holder is harmed. You wanted to know how. I cited several examples. You've rebutted none of them.
With the number of artists releasing their works for free distribution, it's somewhat absurd to expect a consumer to know whether their source is legit or not.
If you are suggesting that it's absurd to expect someone downloading "Hurt Locker" (or virtually any other recent movie) to be aware that the source is *NOT* legit I would suggest it is you who are being absurd.
I've seen many artists, including those signed by major labels, release some (or all) of their work for free download and sharing
Wonderful. And as the copyright holder, they are exercising their rights. And if the copyright holder wants you to pay $19.99 before you can watch his movie, he is also exercising *HIS* rights.
it's not too far of a stretch for the average schmoe the believe that their free download source is legit.
Are you honestly expecting this argument to be taken seriously?
That aside, I'd like to point out how you moved the goal post. You originally requested how the copyright holder is harmed by your unpaid download. I responded. You failed to even suggest I'm wrong. You just tried to switch the argument to something else. I would strongly suggest you try to step away from this topic for a while and let your emotions settle a bit. I'm getting the impression you aren't interested in an HONEST discussion, but some type of subjective justification for stepping all over someone elses rights.
Again I ask you, may I selectively decide which of your rights I can honor? You failed to answer that direct question in my last post.
I'd like you to point out exactly how, given that I'm unable or unwilling to pay, my download is HURTING them.
There are a number of points I'll inject here:
o There is now an extra copy out there that wasn't paid for. As one-offs, this is trivial, but with enough violations, it's substantial and would devalue the movie. o While you may not BUY the movie, you may rent (via netflix or PPV) which would create a greater demand for the movie -- again, as a one-off, this is trivial... o Why would you watch it on over-the-air if you've already downloaded it? That decreases the value to advertisers and reduces viewership when a movie finally airs on ABC, CBS or whatever. Again, as a one-off, this is trivial.
On the other hand, I strongly suspect (and welcome evidence to the contrary) if copyrights were respected and honored, you (the royal "you", meaning as a group) would do without (along with everyeone else) and eventually see the movie in the theater, buy the movie, rent the movie, or watch it on over-the-air more often than you would not.
Any one of those would increase the value to the copyright holder -- which translates as $$$.
Also, it's not JUST about DVD sales. Or movie ticket sales. Or anything else. On a much lower level, you are depriving them of the control of their property granted them by the Law of this (and many other) land(s). If you can't at least see *THIS* as harming the copyright holder, I can't help you. If they want to sit on a movie they made and not sell it to ANYONE, they have the right.
Just curious, is it OK to selectively choose which of YOUR rights I can honor?
Yes it is. My mouth, my body, my right to say whatever I want with it.
Good luck with that.
Take your mouth, your body and your "right" to say whatever you want with it and stand outside the Whitehouse and claim you are going to kill the President.
Extreme example, but it easily shows how wrong you are.
I have. It was at a Rocky Horror Picture show
Did you duck when the point I was making was coming at you? Or was it just over your head because I had higher expectations of you?
Slashdot Mirror
"1) P=NP?"
P="BOB"
NP="BOB"
if P=NP then write("TRUE!")
"2) List and explain three one-way functions."
Birth (just try to go back the other way)
Sex (Well, this is kind of an while/endwhile or some other type of loop)
Death (see Birth)
"3) List five rhymes for the word "orange"."
Door Hinge
Beer Binge
Infringe
Dope Syringe
Spine twinge
Glad I don't correspond with anyone in India.
That's inaccurate. Assuming you meant "because they are an authority/expert [in the field being debated]", it would be fallacious if they were to claim the argument were true BECAUSE they were an expert. 'Holds better' implies a "strengthens" an argument -- which it does.
Slashdot-car-analogy-alert! Example:
Given: I'm an expert in car maintenance.
Is a Fallacy:
I tell you that you need new shocks. You say "why". I say "Because I'm an expert".
Is not a Fallacy:
I tell you that you need new shocks. You say "why". I say "Because they look warn to me. This one is cracked and your tires are warn. Believe me, I'm an expert and seen this countless times.".
Explaination:
The argument 2nd argument DOES "holds better" coming from an expert. But it does not, by default make the argument (that new shocks are needed) "true" or make this argument a fallacy.
It's appeal to authority. And referring to an expert is *NOT* by definition a logical fallacy.
It's only a logical fallacy when the "authority" is not an "authority" on the subject being debated.
Example:
A statistician makes a claim that the mathematics being used by a climatologist are inaccurate, and the climatologist cites another climatologist (as an authority) who backs up his claim, THIS is an appeal to authority fallacy.
That's not accurate -- my memory of The Apology, while aged, I'm still pretty sure is spot on.
The way it worked was the the "accuser" selected a sentence then the "guilty" selected a sentence. Then "jury" would choose.
His prosecutor, Melitus, proposed death. Socrates first offered a reward for himself and family, thus insulting his "jury". He then offered an insulting small amount -- then his friends (Plato and Crito among them) got him to up the fine to something less insulting and promised they would cover it of Socrates couldn't. The jury then selected death (more so than found him guilty -- which means a number of people who voted him not-guilty voted him to die).
In the Crito, Crito made it clear that escape was common enough and the authorities didn't care as long as you lived in exile -- and Crito was concerned he'd be accused of being a bad friend for not helping Socrates escape -- and that no one would believe him if he claimed Socrates refused.
I'm sure if I'm misrepresenting this, someone will correct me, but I'm fairly sure I've nailed it.
Semantics. As far as I'm concerned, and in my reading, he made the offer. He didn't follow through based on the jailer's statement. The point was that one of his crimes was heresy (or at least impiety) and in more than one utterance, Socrates was shown to be quite pious and very conscious of the dictates of faith leading up to his death.
When reading the Phaedo, I can't help but believe I'm reading an eye witness account of the last hours of Socrates. And the Phaedo isn't considered one of his earlier works.
Socrates was "executed" for several crimes -- including heresy.
An argument can be made that Socrates caused himself to be sentenced to death by pissing off his jury -- essentially insulting them by saying his punishment should be to have himself, wife and kids should be taken care of for the rest of their lives. After pissing them off, his friends basically said "NONONO! He'll pay a fine! We'll cover it!" The prosecution offered death. The "jury" picked death.
Further, can it REALLY be called an "execution"? The Athenians' bent over backwards to let him escape. He refused. When the day came, he happily drank the poison -- even offering a bit to gods before drinking. I'd say it was more of voluntary martyrdom...
And.... you just illustrated the point I made further up the thread where I said: ...when "Hitler" and "fascist" is used by opposition party or opposition interests as often as it has the last 10-20 years by BOTH sides, it loses it's value as a dialectic tool and cheapens/subdues the horrors that WERE perpetrated by fascists/Nazis.
Is there a date on that? It appears to be pre WWII to me...
Hyperbole is a legitimate dialectic tool -- but more suited for literature.
However, when "Hitler" and "fascist" is used by opposition party or opposition interests as often as it has the last 10-20 years by BOTH sides, it loses it's value as a dialectic tool and cheapens/subdues the horrors that WERE perpetrated by fascists/Nazis.
As far as Hitler being compared to Napoleon by his contemporary media, I recall that Hitler was a fan of Napoleon (I remember seeing a few pics of him at Napoleons' tomb with his hat off). However, I believe (with a few exceptions) the comparisons of Hitler to Napoleon are mostly contemporary.
If we want a truly HONEST forum here, we really shouldn't toss out the term "facist" like it was Halloween candy.
Seriously, if Obama is Hitler and Bush is Hitler, what does that make Hitler?
I'd still be expected to show up for work, on time.
God I hate my job.
I think it's more likely that the US will try to use US laws on US ISPs to BLOCK foreign/non-US websites -- until those websites conform to US laws.
I don't think it's going to be much fun.
I disagree. The right to arms is not absolute in a similar way as the right to free speach isn't absolute.
Because it's not mentioned in the Constitution, it's usually left up to the States (at least that's the way it's supposed to work) -- which is why, using your example. driving is usually considered a privilege which can be revoked. I find it "odd" that someone would use the Constitution in an argument to prove driving drunk *IS* legal. You *MIGHT* make the argument that it's *Constitutional* in that it isn't violating the Constitution.
On that, I would suggest reading up on what our Founder's meant. My favorite is Richard Henry Lee (Virginia): "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
I'd suggest also reading Federalist 184-188.
Or Patrick Henry (another Virginian): "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Note: I do not own a gun. I do not WANT to own a gun. I do not like guns *OR* their intended purpose. I, however, cannot argue against a reasonable argument (especially on Constitutional grounds) that personal possession of a gun is a *RIGHT*. It is a right I chose not to exercise.
For what I paid for a 3 bedroom, 1700 sq ft "fixer" home on 6000+ sq ft lot in 2005 in SoCal, I guess it could be called a "financial mansion" if not the physical space of one.
I just call it the "black hole sucking away my financial solvency".
Of course it does. It's their right if they want to sit on it and prevent anyone from seeing or hearing something which they hold the copyright. It's their right if they want to charge $100000 to let just YOU see it, but no one else in the world. Or if they want to sell DVDs or CDs of the material and not "give" away anything for free. It's their right.
How can you not see that you are just trying to justify violating someone's rights? They hold the copyright and have set the rules. You have infringed on their rights. I don't see you having any moral high-ground when someone comes and violates YOUR rights.
Why not be honest? Say "Yup. I'm breaking the law. And I'm going to continue doing it until I'm caught and either arrested or sued -- otherwise, I don't give a rats-patootie about the copyright holder because me getting/watching a movie for free or getting/listening to music for free is more important to me than someone's rights!". But no... you cop out and give yourself the excuse "they aren't LOSING anything because I wouldn't have paid anyway". That's BS. If you didn't pay, you shouldn't have it. You HAVE it, so you should PAY.
And I can run traffic lights. And I can shoot people in public. And I can rob a bank. And I can write bad checks. And I can run people down with my car. And I can walk in to a 7-11 and rob it.
What do all these things (including yours) have in common? They are illegal.
Assuming you are listening to a purchased copy of this song at the party, the difference is that when you download it you can keep it and listen to it whenever you want (there is now an extra copy out there), and it was in violation of the copyright holders' rights. How can you not see this?
And since you seem to be OK with selectively choosing which rights of others you'll honor, would you mind if I selectively pick which of *YOUR* right that *I'LL* honor?
Just like to point out that the article is from 2002 -- discussing a study done in 2001. I would be interested to see if the trend continued as the internet became more main-stream. And does such trending translate to movie-ticket sales, dvd sales and TV Advertising dollars? I don't think so.
That said, does it really MATTER if they are spending more money on music or not? If the copyright holder doesn't want you to have something before you pay for it then it is well within their rights. And if you want to selectively ignore that right, can I selectively choose which rights of yours I'll honor?
Is that really what you think? I think you are wrong (at least in the US). I also think if you actually look up copyright infringement, you'll see you are wrong.
Where did I say theft? I argued the the copyright holder is harmed. You wanted to know how. I cited several examples. You've rebutted none of them.
If you are suggesting that it's absurd to expect someone downloading "Hurt Locker" (or virtually any other recent movie) to be aware that the source is *NOT* legit I would suggest it is you who are being absurd.
Wonderful. And as the copyright holder, they are exercising their rights. And if the copyright holder wants you to pay $19.99 before you can watch his movie, he is also exercising *HIS* rights.
Are you honestly expecting this argument to be taken seriously?
That aside, I'd like to point out how you moved the goal post. You originally requested how the copyright holder is harmed by your unpaid download. I responded. You failed to even suggest I'm wrong. You just tried to switch the argument to something else. I would strongly suggest you try to step away from this topic for a while and let your emotions settle a bit. I'm getting the impression you aren't interested in an HONEST discussion, but some type of subjective justification for stepping all over someone elses rights.
Again I ask you, may I selectively decide which of your rights I can honor? You failed to answer that direct question in my last post.
There are a number of points I'll inject here:
o There is now an extra copy out there that wasn't paid for. As one-offs, this is trivial, but with enough violations, it's substantial and would devalue the movie.
o While you may not BUY the movie, you may rent (via netflix or PPV) which would create a greater demand for the movie -- again, as a one-off, this is trivial...
o Why would you watch it on over-the-air if you've already downloaded it? That decreases the value to advertisers and reduces viewership when a movie finally airs on ABC, CBS or whatever. Again, as a one-off, this is trivial.
On the other hand, I strongly suspect (and welcome evidence to the contrary) if copyrights were respected and honored, you (the royal "you", meaning as a group) would do without (along with everyeone else) and eventually see the movie in the theater, buy the movie, rent the movie, or watch it on over-the-air more often than you would not.
Any one of those would increase the value to the copyright holder -- which translates as $$$.
Also, it's not JUST about DVD sales. Or movie ticket sales. Or anything else. On a much lower level, you are depriving them of the control of their property granted them by the Law of this (and many other) land(s). If you can't at least see *THIS* as harming the copyright holder, I can't help you. If they want to sit on a movie they made and not sell it to ANYONE, they have the right.
Just curious, is it OK to selectively choose which of YOUR rights I can honor?
Good luck with that.
Take your mouth, your body and your "right" to say whatever you want with it and stand outside the Whitehouse and claim you are going to kill the President.
Extreme example, but it easily shows how wrong you are.
Did you duck when the point I was making was coming at you? Or was it just over your head because I had higher expectations of you?
Heh... I remember the phone numbers of friends I had when I was 7-12 years old. But I can't remember their names... Go figure.
Freedom of expression is not absolute. You cannot incite to violence, panic or break laws.
Try yelling "fire" in the crowded theater.