I appreciate your expertise, but I expect more concreteness. There is not a single number in your post. If the qualified medium to high confidence is backed up by a 0.03% probability, then it really is nearly meaningless. Not reporting the numbers is engaging in sensationalism.
So are you saying that "begging the question" meaning "raising the question" is am improper usage if Newton used it commonly 400 years ago? (your link does not seem to prove he did, by the way) If so, how many centuries or eons must something be in common usage before it is accepted as proper?
And the phrase "begging the question" as a logic argument comes from an ancient Latin translation. Can you accept that translations are often imperfect? Perhaps the phrase "begging the question" begs the translation.
Can you also not accept that the word "begs" can indeed also mean "compels to notice" which fits nicely with "raising the question?" The phrase has at least as many meanings as the individual words contain.
Language is liquid. Name your context and fix it down to converse, but don't nail others for not using YOUR context. "Begging the question," has specific meanings in logic and law, as it does in common dialect. They are simply not the same meaning.
What does the phrase "fly by night" mean to you? Do you know what context in which I intend to use it?
Why not even simpler? The managers job is to stop the illegal recording, right? They have the single most effective tool - TURN OFF THE MOVIE. Now it is impossible for the would-be copyright infringer to get the whole thing. So the steps should be:
1) Notice taping. 2) Stop movie 3) Turn on lights 4) Take picture of offender 5) Say loudly that the picture will be turned over to the police unless the offender can hand over the tape/delete the recording immediately. Oh yeah, and you have to leave now. 6) Restart the movie.
I'm sure the first response is, "But why punish everyone?" Well, you're not punishing everyone. They will get to see the rest of the movie. Sure it will be annoying the first 2 or 3 times it happens and you'll get some complaints, but within a very short period you can be assured that the other movie-goers will make CERTAIN their seat neighbors don't whip out a camera. For those old enough to remember arcades, this happened with drinks on pool tables and pinball machines. Shut down 1 game, or close a room to violators, and that behavior stops rather quickly.
(I'm a little off your thread, I apologize for that, but I was reading your stuff when the thought occurred so it relates)
You seem to be using strict legal extremes to dodge the points about common civility. Do you have ANY advice for the theatre owners other than call the cops? Are you advocating an extreme legal state where every action has to be heavily considered due to potentially absurd consequences?
Remember the crime that is trying to be stopped here. Illegal recording. There are MANY ways to stop illegal recording that do not require law enforcement. In this specific example, the girl was caught within 20 seconds. That time includes walking down to her, figuring out it was her doing the recording, and going into the whole "You need to leave, give up your phone, etc" speech. In that same amount of time, they could have stopped the film. That's right. Just turned it off. The illegal recording would have stopped instantly - and there may even be some argument for the theatre being REQUIRED to take this step to protect the content that they control ad hoc. Do that enough times and you'll have the audience policing itself with no added drain on the legal system or loss from the copyright holder.
There are advocates of "teach a lesson" that would let an 8-year old pocket a candy bar and THEN have security shake them down. They are within their legal rights. But everyone knows the real lessons taught here: "Fear the MAN." That same person could have made other choices about the candy bar like calling the kid out themselves. Entirely different lessons learned. It is this gray area of "lessons" where the human element, not legally mandated, is important. I can't tell from what you're saying where you fall on the human side of this issue. The legal side is quite clear.
I'm going to spin on your analogy, just to make a point. Someone else will come along and spin mine and screw it up too, so don't feel bad.
Cars are applications, not operating systems. The roads and traffic laws are the operating system (roads = MS - ubiquitous). Cessnas use a different OS (air = MAC OS - planes are good at what they do, but not much else). So do trains (tracks = Solaris - you gotta be a big boy to play). And boats (ummm, water = Linux - think scale like battleships and jet skis able to co-exist).
Cars can run on train tracks, but not without modifications, and it is sub-optimal (Think CrossOver Office). Trains almost never fly. Can you land your Cessna in your short suburban driveway? Or in your pool?
That's why Linux isn't making good inroads on the desktop. It needs to be an SUV out of the gate and instead it is more like a rare flying water-car that requires training to drive on regular roads.
Where the heck is BadAnalogyGuy when you NEED him?
The discussion is around Minimum ADVERTISED Price. Retailers can use this to their advantage. They can bargain down (that's not an advertised price). They can have clearance sales that don't advertise specific models and prices. They can have sales with marketing campaigns like "Retail Price $4500, but come on in for the REAL price!"
I do. I had to get my toes wet in the Microsoft Server world exclusively because of ONE application: QuickBooks Enterprise (don't confuse this with vanilla QuickBooks, please. $50 != $XXXXX). They refused to support our having the datafile on our RAID 5, nightly backed up to tape, super reliable Novell server. Windows Only or we won't help you. I literally had to move the datafile onto a temporary Windows 2000 workstation to get support once.
That first step has led to a cascade of events and we are now retiring our Novell Server in the next few weeks permanently. Going all Microsoft. If Quickbooks had been more flexible about where the datafile could live, different server decisions would have been made over the years. We might have stuck with Novell, and even upgraded to their Linux flavor. As it was, that just opened the door for OTHER Microsoft thinking and now I have a small aramada of MS servers to replace my trusty Novell box.
So your definition of ethics is that they are only to be applied reciprocally? That doesn't work for me, and many others.
Ethics are personal. You have to live with YOURSELF after you leave that job regardless of how bad the job was.
If you CAN live with yourself behaving as described (what I personally would call an unethical manner, but to each his own) then that is *your* true level of ethics.
It is unfair to use the other parties ethics to artificially inflate your own. In other words, saying you are being ethical when compared to the unethical practices of your employer is complete bunk. You are ethical in only one comparison: to yourself.
Of course there are no 100% truisms, but I think if you can understand my point, you'll understand the criticisms others are making on the unethical-ness they perceive.
"...but some Slashdot pundits won't be satisfied until every single debate is characterized as a debate between their own opinion and some unrelated extremist strawman."
I work in the photography industry and their big US show in NYC, Photo+ Expo, has been getting smaller year after year. It is not because photography is declining, it is because the internet is a GREAT way to release and showcase new products and tech. At least that's what the big photography distributors are telling each other.
Spend gobs of money on a nifty trade show booth and extremely expensive union guys to help you plug in your power strip -OR- go internet viral for less money? Scramble to get a product released by the trade show date, or release it on its own time-table when it can compete most effectively? The choice seems clearer every year.
Trade shows as venues for marketing direct to customers have been dwindling for a while. Trade shows as a networking function are even getting dated. You don't need to be on your feet for 3 days in some other city to figure out who you want to partner with anymore.
Does anyone know of any industries where trade shows are growing?
I take it YANAL either. Neither am I, but at least I actually read the link you sent:
Evidentiary Issues
Individuals and businesses that make surreptitious recordings often do so with the expectation that the recordings will be useful as evidence. Such recordings are subject to significant barriers to use as evidence. First, if made in violation of either federal or state law, the recordings will almost certainly be inadmissible. Second, even if lawfully recorded, the tapes will be exempt from the hearsay rule and will not, in most jurisdictions, be usable for impeachment. Anyone contemplating an evidentiary use of surreptitious recordings should consult with an attorney prior to making the recording.
That may work IF all the laptops actually get to the children, and the children only. But they have to get there first.
Example: Local constabulary orders 150 for their children (and they have the "paperwork" to back it up) but they only have 100 kids. The extra 50 are sold on the black market and end up on eBay. You *know* this is going to happen.
If the laptops get to the kids, then it's easy for a teacher/administrator to see that Kid X doesn't have their computer anymore and the stolen SN is black listed across the net (and the kid gets a new one).
If the unit is stolen BEFORE the teachers/administrators ever see it, or they are co-opted as part of the corruption, then there is actually no real mechanism for theft prevention.
Never underestimate the converging axes of poverty/corruption/greed and market desire. The repeated/. desire for these laptops actually MAKES this market exist and INSPIRES corruption.
The symbolism of the first post in a D&D thread being marked as a TROLL is not lost on me. Since trolls burn, I fully expect to be modded as FLAMEBAIT.
Touche. But they go hand in hand. And talk that the US is not following RoHS is silly. California is nearly there, New England will follow, then manufacturer's will find it easier to produce one version that's RoHS (we're already doing it!).
Several times he said something like, "It's lead free and RoHS so you can throw it away guilt-free!" That's just not true!
RoHS does not equal guilt-free trashing. It attempts to equal a full cycle approach.
RoHS stuff is low lead, true, BUT it is marked with a little trashcan that has a line through it. That icon is telling you DO NOT THROW THIS IN THE TRASH. Have it properly disposed of or return it to the manufacturer. While it contains no lead, it may contain OTHER hazardous materials (eat some no-lead resistors and a slice of PCB, tell me how that makes you feel). It needs to be reclaimed, and NOT end up in a landfill. That's what RoHS is ALSO about.
I'm not a super greenie (I *am* wearing a green shirt) but even I know that trash is a part of the green picture. He had a shred of info about low power and efficient power supplies, but green does not equal guilt-free trashing. Ever.
You know, you can usually eliminate the blind spot just by adjusting your stock mirrors correctly. Most people set them so they can see the "fins" of their car. That CREATES a blind spot.
Try this (recommended by the AAA by the way - an 'old' link):
* On the driver's side, put your head against the window, THEN adjust so you can see the "fins."
* On the passenger side, put your head in the middle of the car, then adjust the mirror.
Those are approximations, of course. Tweak until you have continuous coverage from Side Mirror--> Rear View --> Side Mirror. In my car (smallish hybrid SUV with requisite blind pillar spots) I don't have to turn my head all the way because my stock mirrors eliminate the blind spot completely! I look anyway, of course, but it's nice to have TWO views that overlap. I see the headlights of a car passing me in my side mirror while I can still see their taillights in my rear view. It took a while to get used to, having done the "fins" approach for decades, but now when I drive someone else's car I feel vulnerable until I get the mirrors properly aligned.
Slashdot Mirror
It was in a Service Merchandise store. I was 14. It was 1983, I think. The man at the stereo counter was showing me and a friend how they worked.
Him: "Listen to how incredible they sound!"
Us: "Wow!"
Him: "Listen to how clean it is during the silence as I turn it way up!
Us: "Whoa!"
Him: "And look! They're nearly indestructible!"
Us: "Cool!"
...every time I cast a shadow.
I appreciate your expertise, but I expect more concreteness. There is not a single number in your post. If the qualified medium to high confidence is backed up by a 0.03% probability, then it really is nearly meaningless. Not reporting the numbers is engaging in sensationalism.
So are you saying that "begging the question" meaning "raising the question" is am improper usage if Newton used it commonly 400 years ago? (your link does not seem to prove he did, by the way) If so, how many centuries or eons must something be in common usage before it is accepted as proper?
And the phrase "begging the question" as a logic argument comes from an ancient Latin translation. Can you accept that translations are often imperfect? Perhaps the phrase "begging the question" begs the translation.
Can you also not accept that the word "begs" can indeed also mean "compels to notice" which fits nicely with "raising the question?" The phrase has at least as many meanings as the individual words contain.
Language is liquid. Name your context and fix it down to converse, but don't nail others for not using YOUR context. "Begging the question," has specific meanings in logic and law, as it does in common dialect. They are simply not the same meaning.
What does the phrase "fly by night" mean to you? Do you know what context in which I intend to use it?
Why not even simpler? The managers job is to stop the illegal recording, right? They have the single most effective tool - TURN OFF THE MOVIE. Now it is impossible for the would-be copyright infringer to get the whole thing. So the steps should be:
1) Notice taping.
2) Stop movie
3) Turn on lights
4) Take picture of offender
5) Say loudly that the picture will be turned over to the police unless the offender can hand over the tape/delete the recording immediately. Oh yeah, and you have to leave now.
6) Restart the movie.
I'm sure the first response is, "But why punish everyone?" Well, you're not punishing everyone. They will get to see the rest of the movie. Sure it will be annoying the first 2 or 3 times it happens and you'll get some complaints, but within a very short period you can be assured that the other movie-goers will make CERTAIN their seat neighbors don't whip out a camera. For those old enough to remember arcades, this happened with drinks on pool tables and pinball machines. Shut down 1 game, or close a room to violators, and that behavior stops rather quickly.
(I'm a little off your thread, I apologize for that, but I was reading your stuff when the thought occurred so it relates)
You seem to be using strict legal extremes to dodge the points about common civility. Do you have ANY advice for the theatre owners other than call the cops? Are you advocating an extreme legal state where every action has to be heavily considered due to potentially absurd consequences?
Remember the crime that is trying to be stopped here. Illegal recording. There are MANY ways to stop illegal recording that do not require law enforcement. In this specific example, the girl was caught within 20 seconds. That time includes walking down to her, figuring out it was her doing the recording, and going into the whole "You need to leave, give up your phone, etc" speech. In that same amount of time, they could have stopped the film. That's right. Just turned it off. The illegal recording would have stopped instantly - and there may even be some argument for the theatre being REQUIRED to take this step to protect the content that they control ad hoc. Do that enough times and you'll have the audience policing itself with no added drain on the legal system or loss from the copyright holder.
There are advocates of "teach a lesson" that would let an 8-year old pocket a candy bar and THEN have security shake them down. They are within their legal rights. But everyone knows the real lessons taught here: "Fear the MAN." That same person could have made other choices about the candy bar like calling the kid out themselves. Entirely different lessons learned. It is this gray area of "lessons" where the human element, not legally mandated, is important. I can't tell from what you're saying where you fall on the human side of this issue. The legal side is quite clear.
I'm going to spin on your analogy, just to make a point. Someone else will come along and spin mine and screw it up too, so don't feel bad.
Cars are applications, not operating systems. The roads and traffic laws are the operating system (roads = MS - ubiquitous). Cessnas use a different OS (air = MAC OS - planes are good at what they do, but not much else). So do trains (tracks = Solaris - you gotta be a big boy to play). And boats (ummm, water = Linux - think scale like battleships and jet skis able to co-exist).
Cars can run on train tracks, but not without modifications, and it is sub-optimal (Think CrossOver Office). Trains almost never fly. Can you land your Cessna in your short suburban driveway? Or in your pool?
That's why Linux isn't making good inroads on the desktop. It needs to be an SUV out of the gate and instead it is more like a rare flying water-car that requires training to drive on regular roads.
Where the heck is BadAnalogyGuy when you NEED him?
The discussion is around Minimum ADVERTISED Price. Retailers can use this to their advantage. They can bargain down (that's not an advertised price). They can have clearance sales that don't advertise specific models and prices. They can have sales with marketing campaigns like "Retail Price $4500, but come on in for the REAL price!"
I do. I had to get my toes wet in the Microsoft Server world exclusively because of ONE application: QuickBooks Enterprise (don't confuse this with vanilla QuickBooks, please. $50 != $XXXXX). They refused to support our having the datafile on our RAID 5, nightly backed up to tape, super reliable Novell server. Windows Only or we won't help you. I literally had to move the datafile onto a temporary Windows 2000 workstation to get support once.
That first step has led to a cascade of events and we are now retiring our Novell Server in the next few weeks permanently. Going all Microsoft. If Quickbooks had been more flexible about where the datafile could live, different server decisions would have been made over the years. We might have stuck with Novell, and even upgraded to their Linux flavor. As it was, that just opened the door for OTHER Microsoft thinking and now I have a small aramada of MS servers to replace my trusty Novell box.
So your definition of ethics is that they are only to be applied reciprocally? That doesn't work for me, and many others.
Ethics are personal. You have to live with YOURSELF after you leave that job regardless of how bad the job was.
If you CAN live with yourself behaving as described (what I personally would call an unethical manner, but to each his own) then that is *your* true level of ethics.
It is unfair to use the other parties ethics to artificially inflate your own. In other words, saying you are being ethical when compared to the unethical practices of your employer is complete bunk. You are ethical in only one comparison: to yourself.
Of course there are no 100% truisms, but I think if you can understand my point, you'll understand the criticisms others are making on the unethical-ness they perceive.
"...but some Slashdot pundits won't be satisfied until every single debate is characterized as a debate between their own opinion and some unrelated extremist strawman."
Where's that +1 Irony mod when you need it?
Wait a minute. Are you insinuating that the adult teacher INCITED this behavior from a minor? I think they're jailing the wrong person, don't you?
I'm not a big proponent of status quo. Neither is nature. I still drive a hybrid, though.
Depends where you prune the timeline. All that underground carbon started up here, you know. You did call it a fossil fuel, so I think you get that.
I work in the photography industry and their big US show in NYC, Photo+ Expo, has been getting smaller year after year. It is not because photography is declining, it is because the internet is a GREAT way to release and showcase new products and tech. At least that's what the big photography distributors are telling each other.
Spend gobs of money on a nifty trade show booth and extremely expensive union guys to help you plug in your power strip -OR- go internet viral for less money? Scramble to get a product released by the trade show date, or release it on its own time-table when it can compete most effectively? The choice seems clearer every year.
Trade shows as venues for marketing direct to customers have been dwindling for a while. Trade shows as a networking function are even getting dated. You don't need to be on your feet for 3 days in some other city to figure out who you want to partner with anymore.
Does anyone know of any industries where trade shows are growing?
That may work IF all the laptops actually get to the children, and the children only. But they have to get there first.
/. desire for these laptops actually MAKES this market exist and INSPIRES corruption.
Example: Local constabulary orders 150 for their children (and they have the "paperwork" to back it up) but they only have 100 kids. The extra 50 are sold on the black market and end up on eBay. You *know* this is going to happen.
If the laptops get to the kids, then it's easy for a teacher/administrator to see that Kid X doesn't have their computer anymore and the stolen SN is black listed across the net (and the kid gets a new one).
If the unit is stolen BEFORE the teachers/administrators ever see it, or they are co-opted as part of the corruption, then there is actually no real mechanism for theft prevention.
Never underestimate the converging axes of poverty/corruption/greed and market desire. The repeated
And what's to stop that from happening anyway?
The symbolism of the first post in a D&D thread being marked as a TROLL is not lost on me. Since trolls burn, I fully expect to be modded as FLAMEBAIT.
(heh heh - he said "a D&D" heh heh heh)
Isn't it true that until you personalize the protest (actually become a visible or known protester), there is actually no real protest to respond to?
Touche. But they go hand in hand. And talk that the US is not following RoHS is silly. California is nearly there, New England will follow, then manufacturer's will find it easier to produce one version that's RoHS (we're already doing it!).
Several times he said something like, "It's lead free and RoHS so you can throw it away guilt-free!" That's just not true!
RoHS does not equal guilt-free trashing. It attempts to equal a full cycle approach.
RoHS stuff is low lead, true, BUT it is marked with a little trashcan that has a line through it. That icon is telling you DO NOT THROW THIS IN THE TRASH. Have it properly disposed of or return it to the manufacturer. While it contains no lead, it may contain OTHER hazardous materials (eat some no-lead resistors and a slice of PCB, tell me how that makes you feel). It needs to be reclaimed, and NOT end up in a landfill. That's what RoHS is ALSO about.
I'm not a super greenie (I *am* wearing a green shirt) but even I know that trash is a part of the green picture. He had a shred of info about low power and efficient power supplies, but green does not equal guilt-free trashing. Ever.
You know, you can usually eliminate the blind spot just by adjusting your stock mirrors correctly. Most people set them so they can see the "fins" of their car. That CREATES a blind spot.
Try this (recommended by the AAA by the way - an 'old' link):
* On the driver's side, put your head against the window, THEN adjust so you can see the "fins."
* On the passenger side, put your head in the middle of the car, then adjust the mirror.
Those are approximations, of course. Tweak until you have continuous coverage from Side Mirror--> Rear View --> Side Mirror. In my car (smallish hybrid SUV with requisite blind pillar spots) I don't have to turn my head all the way because my stock mirrors eliminate the blind spot completely! I look anyway, of course, but it's nice to have TWO views that overlap. I see the headlights of a car passing me in my side mirror while I can still see their taillights in my rear view. It took a while to get used to, having done the "fins" approach for decades, but now when I drive someone else's car I feel vulnerable until I get the mirrors properly aligned.
[i]don't know of anyone that's started out in any industry that's trying to have a perpetual livable income from just one work.[/i]
Christopher Tolkien off the opus of his father.
No. Tax revenue is a good thing.