Inalienable rights are not defined by society, but rather by nature. Your right to your own body is inalienable, for example, because you can't stop controlling your own body or give control of it to someone else.
It sounds like that's a different definition than what is normally applied. For instance the US declaration of independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Now obviously "liberty" is not an un/inalienable right. People go to jail and are deprived of liberty. We had slavery in this country after these inalienable rights were defined. It's a joke.
Likewise we have the death penalty, so there's no inalienable right to life.
The pursuit of happiness is kind of in the realm you're talking about, you can't really stop someone from pursuing happiness even if you don't want them to be happy.. but you can identify the things that make people happy and target those. I think that's what the "right" is referring to, and in that sense it clearly doesn't exist, hence how things like certain sex acts and certain inebriating substances have been legal and illegal at different times.
Many consider freedom of speech to be an inalienable right, so you shouldn't be allowed to use speech to attack freedom of speech? You should go to jail for your comment perhaps?
(Not to mention, there's no such thing as an inalienable right. That's stupid. Inalienable rights come and go as society deems them appropriate.)
You've misunderstood GP entirely. He is being literal. I googled "what percentage of men don't have kids" and here is the answer (the highlighted search result that Google thinks best answers my question without having to click a link):
According to the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, in 2014, 47.6 percent of women between age 15 and 44 had never had children, up from 46.5 percent in 2012. This represents the highest percentage of childless women since the bureau started tracking that data in 1976.Apr 9, 2015
Kind of an ironic comment... it's pretty obvious that the "????" meant incredulity that reusable boosters isn't game-changing, i.e. an invitation to explain why they are not game changing. That you assumed it meant that the sentence itself wasn't understood is really funny. "What is so hard to understand" indeed.
if at any point you did not pay the maximum amount you would be willing to pay for any good then you would be "stealing" the difference
No because the producer has consented to provide the good at a given price. I didn't say "how much would I be willing to pay" just "would I be willing to pay." What I meant was "Would I be willing to pay what is asked?" and omitted that because I didn't realize it would be misinterpreted.
If you would pay for content in the absence of the content being available for free via piracy, then to me that's a different situation than if you wouldn't pay for it in the absence of piracy.
people are willing to pay whatever they must in order to live
There's also competition among producers, not sure what you're trying to get at here. I don't think you can reduce all of economics to a simple moral question, this is specifically in response to the person who implied a moral argument can't involve the price point.
One does not measure harm by simply comparing one's situation with what could have been if others made different choices. In particular, you are not harmed merely because others fail to take actions which might have benefitted you.
Not simply so, no, but it's definitely a component. You can be harmed by the choices made by others even if only through their failure to include you. Obvious example, I give everybody except you $10000000, making your money worthless through inflation. Is intellectual property like that? Morally speaking with respect to harm it is. It does harm a producer if the people who can afford to pay do not pay because of the availability of pirated content.
To me, the balancing issue against this is that with the same logic there is a moral imperative for producers to make things available to consumers. If it's free to duplicate something that is valued by others, then you are essentially harming those people by withholding it. Now it becomes a choice whether to allow consumers to be immoral by not enforcing copyright as you suggested, or allow producers to be immoral by doing so.
Wrong, censorship applies to everyone. What is the deal with people trying to limit these sorts of concepts to the government only? Free speech is the other big one that some people think only has meaning with the government.
Let me ask you this, why does the term "self-censorship" exist if it only applies to governments? What is the definition of that term? Are you suggesting that it's a fanciful term that anthropomorphizes government?
No the so-called fight for justice is wrong either way, but this maybe makes it more clear to the people who have been villainizing Russia for their alleged Trump support. I love seeing the cognitive dissonance.
So what? If someone exposes divisions that doesn't make them fake divisions. I don't understand the whole anti-Russia thing, but then again I'm also pro-Wikileaks and I thought Cablegate was one of the greatest things that has ever happened on the internet.
Well it kind of is, because if your morality is based on something like doing harm, the key question becomes "would I be willing to pay for this to begin with?"
If the answer is no, then it has no effect whether I pirate shows or not. I am not paying them any money and I am not costing them any money.
If the answer is yes, then I am stealing the value of those shows by consuming them without paying. Of course this is assuming you assign value to intellectual property, which I do.
The cheaper the service, the more unlikely that the first point applies. When the service becomes more expensive, the first point becomes believable.
If players were out marching in the streets, I probably wouldn't care. But I'm not going to cheer for people who just stood there and told me I'm part of a white supremacist society and blah blah blah. Just like I'm not going to applaud a McDonald's employee for insulting a customer for instance. I support free speech, but not free speech against people who are paying you either directly or indirectly via ad revenue. That's some retarded shit right there.
Hey I want to tell everyone about the killings going on too. Why don't we just start vandalizing MLK statues? That would get attention and then we can tell everyone it has nothing to do with MLK! Just like the protests that take place during the anthem have nothing to do with the anthem it's just this weird coincidence. People will love it.
Facebook claims they don't use location history to connect people, but I wonder if there are some proxies for location data that they do use. Like if they try to determine interests based on what stores you visit that might match you with a neighbor because you tend to go to the same stores.
Dude are you actually being serious? You say you are consciously biased towards women, and your evidence is that in your classes, which you teach, in which you are consciously biased towards women, you rate them higher? That's funny, but also sad and you should be fired for A) being sexist and B) clearly failing to grasp logic which makes you kind of unsuitable for teaching CS.
Whenever these topics come up, the part of the Slashdot discussion that I find most irritating is the logical jump from "some gender pay gap and sexual harassment statistics are misleading if taken at face value" to "any woman who claims she was sexually harassed or passed up for a promotion because of her gender is wrong and a liar." It seems to happen every time.
The first can lead to an interesting discussion about gender and it's effect on the tech workplace.
No, it can't. It leads to a discussion where you're derided as an MRA, a sexist, a white supremacist (since in this country, didn't you know, white supremacy is linked with support of the patriarchy), and so forth.
The second is just ignorant prejudice.
It's a realization that the aforementioned response is more successful. It's lowering yourself to the common denominator because the common denominator is what appeals to the audience. It's actually exactly what SJW's say as well... you don't debate Nazis, you punch them. Well SJW's are Nazis, they just don't realize it.
To make a long story short: Healthcare is nothing like other markets and shouldn't be a market at all.
Your argument at face value would apply to many things like food, water, housing, electricity, etc. But in reality "healthcare" is a very broad term... Tylenol for a headache is not an essential need that you'll die without. In most respects healthcare is just like every other market, especially in broad strokes. For instance if we make it easier for doctors to get into business by creating more medical schools and allowing more visas for foreign doctors, doctor salaries will fall. Healthcare is enough of a market that you can predict that.
However, the acts of the extremists of I.S. do not represent the mainstream of Islam in any way.
They do. Destroying pagan totems is something that goes as far back as Mohammed destroying the idols in the kaaba. You should learn something about Islam before you presume to speak for mainstream Islam.
The thing is, if the cars meet the standards during the test, then they DO meet the standards right? Isn't that the purpose of the test? If the government cared and wanted to test real world conditions they could do so.
There's the rub, how do you prove someone knows something is illegal, outside of the most obvious things like rape and murder? I would never have assumed these defeat devices were illegal, I thought this was going to play out in civil court as an issue about false advertising and compensating owners.
I'm not an automotive engineer but it seems like these defeat devices aren't actually illegal, just misleading. The cars meet the emissions requirements when driven in a very specific way. How is that illegal? Just like if someone drives like a maniac all the time their gas mileage isn't going to be close to the advertised fuel efficiency of the car.
That's incorrect, by refusing to do business with them//because of their speech// they are restricting their speech. They are punishing customers (or former customers if you will) for their speech.
Now as you say there are ways around that, but your argument is basically like saying the US government does not restrict drug use because you could move to another country where drugs are legal, or you could stay in the US and do drugs mostly likely without getting caught. It doesn't have to be 100% effective to be called a restriction, it just has to impose a non-zero cost.
Slashdot Mirror
Inalienable rights are not defined by society, but rather by nature. Your right to your own body is inalienable, for example, because you can't stop controlling your own body or give control of it to someone else.
It sounds like that's a different definition than what is normally applied. For instance the US declaration of independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Now obviously "liberty" is not an un/inalienable right. People go to jail and are deprived of liberty. We had slavery in this country after these inalienable rights were defined. It's a joke.
Likewise we have the death penalty, so there's no inalienable right to life.
The pursuit of happiness is kind of in the realm you're talking about, you can't really stop someone from pursuing happiness even if you don't want them to be happy.. but you can identify the things that make people happy and target those. I think that's what the "right" is referring to, and in that sense it clearly doesn't exist, hence how things like certain sex acts and certain inebriating substances have been legal and illegal at different times.
Many consider freedom of speech to be an inalienable right, so you shouldn't be allowed to use speech to attack freedom of speech? You should go to jail for your comment perhaps?
(Not to mention, there's no such thing as an inalienable right. That's stupid. Inalienable rights come and go as society deems them appropriate.)
You've misunderstood GP entirely. He is being literal. I googled "what percentage of men don't have kids" and here is the answer (the highlighted search result that Google thinks best answers my question without having to click a link):
According to the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, in 2014, 47.6 percent of women between age 15 and 44 had never had children, up from 46.5 percent in 2012. This represents the highest percentage of childless women since the bureau started tracking that data in 1976.Apr 9, 2015
Kind of an ironic comment... it's pretty obvious that the "????" meant incredulity that reusable boosters isn't game-changing, i.e. an invitation to explain why they are not game changing. That you assumed it meant that the sentence itself wasn't understood is really funny. "What is so hard to understand" indeed.
if at any point you did not pay the maximum amount you would be willing to pay for any good then you would be "stealing" the difference
No because the producer has consented to provide the good at a given price. I didn't say "how much would I be willing to pay" just "would I be willing to pay." What I meant was "Would I be willing to pay what is asked?" and omitted that because I didn't realize it would be misinterpreted.
If you would pay for content in the absence of the content being available for free via piracy, then to me that's a different situation than if you wouldn't pay for it in the absence of piracy.
people are willing to pay whatever they must in order to live
There's also competition among producers, not sure what you're trying to get at here. I don't think you can reduce all of economics to a simple moral question, this is specifically in response to the person who implied a moral argument can't involve the price point.
One does not measure harm by simply comparing one's situation with what could have been if others made different choices. In particular, you are not harmed merely because others fail to take actions which might have benefitted you.
Not simply so, no, but it's definitely a component. You can be harmed by the choices made by others even if only through their failure to include you. Obvious example, I give everybody except you $10000000, making your money worthless through inflation. Is intellectual property like that? Morally speaking with respect to harm it is. It does harm a producer if the people who can afford to pay do not pay because of the availability of pirated content.
To me, the balancing issue against this is that with the same logic there is a moral imperative for producers to make things available to consumers. If it's free to duplicate something that is valued by others, then you are essentially harming those people by withholding it. Now it becomes a choice whether to allow consumers to be immoral by not enforcing copyright as you suggested, or allow producers to be immoral by doing so.
Wrong, censorship applies to everyone. What is the deal with people trying to limit these sorts of concepts to the government only? Free speech is the other big one that some people think only has meaning with the government.
Let me ask you this, why does the term "self-censorship" exist if it only applies to governments? What is the definition of that term? Are you suggesting that it's a fanciful term that anthropomorphizes government?
You can't translate proper names huh? Remind me... was ist Deutschland auf Englisch?
I don't think there is any actual outrage, it's so transparent that this is excuse-searching for Hillary.
No the so-called fight for justice is wrong either way, but this maybe makes it more clear to the people who have been villainizing Russia for their alleged Trump support. I love seeing the cognitive dissonance.
So what? If someone exposes divisions that doesn't make them fake divisions. I don't understand the whole anti-Russia thing, but then again I'm also pro-Wikileaks and I thought Cablegate was one of the greatest things that has ever happened on the internet.
Well it kind of is, because if your morality is based on something like doing harm, the key question becomes "would I be willing to pay for this to begin with?"
If the answer is no, then it has no effect whether I pirate shows or not. I am not paying them any money and I am not costing them any money.
If the answer is yes, then I am stealing the value of those shows by consuming them without paying. Of course this is assuming you assign value to intellectual property, which I do.
The cheaper the service, the more unlikely that the first point applies. When the service becomes more expensive, the first point becomes believable.
Explain why that isn't a valid moral argument?
If players were out marching in the streets, I probably wouldn't care. But I'm not going to cheer for people who just stood there and told me I'm part of a white supremacist society and blah blah blah. Just like I'm not going to applaud a McDonald's employee for insulting a customer for instance. I support free speech, but not free speech against people who are paying you either directly or indirectly via ad revenue. That's some retarded shit right there.
Hey I want to tell everyone about the killings going on too. Why don't we just start vandalizing MLK statues? That would get attention and then we can tell everyone it has nothing to do with MLK! Just like the protests that take place during the anthem have nothing to do with the anthem it's just this weird coincidence. People will love it.
Facebook claims they don't use location history to connect people, but I wonder if there are some proxies for location data that they do use. Like if they try to determine interests based on what stores you visit that might match you with a neighbor because you tend to go to the same stores.
I keep hearing these arguments, but have not seen any evidence to back them up.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...
Dude are you actually being serious? You say you are consciously biased towards women, and your evidence is that in your classes, which you teach, in which you are consciously biased towards women, you rate them higher? That's funny, but also sad and you should be fired for A) being sexist and B) clearly failing to grasp logic which makes you kind of unsuitable for teaching CS.
Whenever these topics come up, the part of the Slashdot discussion that I find most irritating is the logical jump from "some gender pay gap and sexual harassment statistics are misleading if taken at face value" to "any woman who claims she was sexually harassed or passed up for a promotion because of her gender is wrong and a liar." It seems to happen every time.
The first can lead to an interesting discussion about gender and it's effect on the tech workplace.
No, it can't. It leads to a discussion where you're derided as an MRA, a sexist, a white supremacist (since in this country, didn't you know, white supremacy is linked with support of the patriarchy), and so forth.
The second is just ignorant prejudice.
It's a realization that the aforementioned response is more successful. It's lowering yourself to the common denominator because the common denominator is what appeals to the audience. It's actually exactly what SJW's say as well... you don't debate Nazis, you punch them. Well SJW's are Nazis, they just don't realize it.
Not the one you think I'm getting, I suspect.
To make a long story short: Healthcare is nothing like other markets and shouldn't be a market at all.
Your argument at face value would apply to many things like food, water, housing, electricity, etc. But in reality "healthcare" is a very broad term... Tylenol for a headache is not an essential need that you'll die without. In most respects healthcare is just like every other market, especially in broad strokes. For instance if we make it easier for doctors to get into business by creating more medical schools and allowing more visas for foreign doctors, doctor salaries will fall. Healthcare is enough of a market that you can predict that.
However, the acts of the extremists of I.S. do not represent the mainstream of Islam in any way.
They do. Destroying pagan totems is something that goes as far back as Mohammed destroying the idols in the kaaba. You should learn something about Islam before you presume to speak for mainstream Islam.
They'll probably increase their delivery fee to compensate.
The thing is, if the cars meet the standards during the test, then they DO meet the standards right? Isn't that the purpose of the test? If the government cared and wanted to test real world conditions they could do so.
There's the rub, how do you prove someone knows something is illegal, outside of the most obvious things like rape and murder? I would never have assumed these defeat devices were illegal, I thought this was going to play out in civil court as an issue about false advertising and compensating owners.
I'm not an automotive engineer but it seems like these defeat devices aren't actually illegal, just misleading. The cars meet the emissions requirements when driven in a very specific way. How is that illegal? Just like if someone drives like a maniac all the time their gas mileage isn't going to be close to the advertised fuel efficiency of the car.
That's incorrect, by refusing to do business with them //because of their speech// they are restricting their speech. They are punishing customers (or former customers if you will) for their speech.
Now as you say there are ways around that, but your argument is basically like saying the US government does not restrict drug use because you could move to another country where drugs are legal, or you could stay in the US and do drugs mostly likely without getting caught. It doesn't have to be 100% effective to be called a restriction, it just has to impose a non-zero cost.