I don't want ads.
I do want free apps.
In some cases, my desire for free apps might be greater than my desire to not have ads.
The more vendors that are competing, the more likely one of them will figure out how to make them unobtrusive enough that I don't mind them.
Everyone defending Apple seems to be pointing out their actions aren't illegal, which is almost certainly true. You can still be reducing competition against the interests of consumers without being an illegal monopoly.
I'm not the Attorney General, I don't care if Apple is breaking the law. I care if they are being obnoxious control freaks, which I think they are. But I decided that years ago and stopped buying their products, so I don't suppose they care.
You pay X dollars to run your ad alongside specific programs with specific ratings broken down to tell you the specific demographic profile of the viewers they will deliver.
Just taking the one company that does this that we've all heard of: Neilsen's annual revenue is 5 Billion.
Right, if you use Googles browser, and set Google as your home page, you must be doing it specifically to quickly get the links to Googles Mail and News.
Which don't show up, because your mouse is over the home button, not the page.
So yes, the fade in is really extra-stupid for Chrome users.:)
They didn't "default it to on". They made it impossible to turn off. You could pick an image via that link, but if you didn't, or if you did and them clicked "Remove Background Image", you got a rotating collection of Google-selected images. The intent was to do this for a day to publicize this exciting new feature.
By the middle of the day they turned it off. They say because a bug made their explanatory link disappear for some users. (I saw it) I suspect the real reason was more to do with "turn off Google background image" being in their top-ten searches for the day.
Of course, if you use Chrome, as we expect Google might approve of, the address bar will do a search. So the links are the whole point of using Google as a homepage. So you hit that home button specifically to get them, but you don't because your mouse is over the button, not the page.
And if you years ago set your home page to google.com, you can get totally used to getting to Gmail or News by clicking home, then the link that will show up a few pixel below the home button you just clicked as soon as the page loads. But it won't until your brain wakes up and remembers you have to do an extra mouse-wiggle in the middle now. And you haven't had coffee, so it will be a little while. Sigh.
Different people have different usage patterns. I hit my browser home button, and I sit there for a few seconds like an idiot waiting for the Gmail or News links to appear. Then my brain wakes up, I shake the mouse about a bitr. A big deal? No. Could I change my usage pattern in about a hundred ways? Sure. But it's awfully annoying to get tripped up in the midst of a nigh-automatic pattern like that several times a day. And for what? I've heard they don't want to distract from the search bar, which doesn't sound like all that big a threat to me.
But in any case, there is a person who thought the "visual clutter" of a couple plain-text links at the edge of the page was an overwhelming problem that needed to be dealt with via the fade-in. Apparently they work on the same team with someone who thought a full-page background image of neon-painted piggy-banks was what I needed. Could we maybe lock them in a room together, so they can each save us the trouble of bitch-slapping the other? Seriously, did both of these ideas get sold to the same decision maker?
The investigative reporter gets the car dealer to precisely calibrate their speedometer ( or gets an extra-exact after market one), and pays an independent expert to test it and sign a sworn affidavit as to it's accuracy. They drive past the camera at precisely one mph below the speed limit, with video tape rolling, documenting everything. They get a ticket anyway. Maybe they do it a couple times. They suprise-interview the cop responsible for calibrating the thing and get some footage of him mumbling lame excuses. Finally, they air a big splashy expose on the 6 o'clock News.
You don't think they can fight the ticket? You don't think there might be reporters with the daring bravery to risk fighting a ticket with that kind of evidence when the downside is (horror of horrors) points on their license! or insurance charges their employer would presumably cover! (neither of which you get for a photo radar ticket in my state, but I digress).
Yikes! You may be utterly paralyzed by your fear of authority possibly frowning in your direction, but I assure you, some people have the trivially minuscule stones required to risk having to pay a fine worth a whole tenth of a percent of what they'll make while working on their story about fraudulently issued fines.
If a traffic camera captures a picture of your car speeding that's evidence, not a conviction. Police collect evidence of various crimes by various methods; investigating a possible crime is not treating anyone as guilty.
"If a traffic camera captures my car speeding, how can it tell if I was driving, I let a friend drive, or it was stolen?"
Cameras can't tell anything and don't conclude anything; they are tools. When one took a picture of my car speeding, the police force using it could tell I was driving because the system took a picture of my car, a close-up of the license plate, and another of my smiling face behind the wheel. The form I got in the mail had a simple check-box to let me say I was willing to swear under penalty of perjury that the person in the picture was not me. Under Colorado law, if I did that, I don't owe a fine, and I don't have to tell them who it is.
"Here in Missouri, all red light cameras where ruled to be against the constitution and banned from use."
No, they were not. It was found unconstitutional for local municipalities to handle citations issued for running red lights in local administrative hearings (as they might a parking ticket). Rather the court ruled that state law requires moving violations (such as running a red light) be heard in Circuit or District court. Which really just means citations for running a red light based on evidence gathered by automated cameras aren't any different from those based on any other sort of evidence (such as a cop who witnessed it). So jurisdictions in Missouri are perfectly free to use red-light cameras to gather evidence of violations, and to issue citations based on them. But you can fight the citation in court, which will probably cost them more than the fine even if you lose. So that protects your rights and removes the inappropriate financial incentive for cities to operate the cameras as a revenue generator.
So in one case, a state Attorney General issues an inappropriate subpoena to try to stop internet criticism, it's obviously a ridiculous failure, and the headline in the newspaper is "Stunning Abuse of Power". He may even lose the election because of it.
In the other case, the national government issues an official policy stating that online criticism of the state will not be tolerated and perpetrators will be jailed. The newspapers all support the government because it owns them. This won't impact elections, because they don't have any.
Somehow, I am not having difficulty distinguishing these. Attempts to quash free speech ought to to be called out and combated. If you live in PA, you ought to vote against this tool. But come on: If you're trying to claim Pennsylvania is at all comparably oppressive to China, you're crazy.
On the other hand, if you're trying to point out that the're is nothing magical about being an American; that totalitarian tools can rise to power and gain the support of PA Republicans as easily as Chinese Communists; that our vastly superior freedoms are only the result of historical luck and constant vigilance... then I'm with you, obviously.
I've only gotten one automated-camera ticket. I knew I was getting a ticket right when the flash went off and the fine was due in about the same timeframe as with a human cop.
"Oh, and if you think about protesting it, there is a good chance the fine will double because you didn't pay it quickly enough"
I've experienced this system, and don't approve. Nothing to do with cameras though; same deal with human-issued tickets.
"Now as long as everything is on the up and up, fine. But what happens when the camera is 'adjusted' a bit? It will be extremely hard to determine whether the tickets are fair or not."
What happens if the human cops say-so is 'adjusted' a bit? I've gotten tickets. I'd have no way of knowing if he added a couple MPH. I'm sure that happens. The camera system has the advantage that is could be independently audited more easily. You can check if someone 'adjusted' a camera after the fact, but if a cop just decided to lie, there's no physical evidence to check.
I agree it is unlikely that the court will entertain the idea the camera is inaccurate, but it's not more likely they will believe the cop is lying.
So I don't see the disadvantage of cameras, but what about the advantages? As a teenager, I got pulled over maybe 5 times. I got a ticket every time. My friend got pulled over a lot more, but usually didn't get tickets. I can only speculate that her being an attractive, flirty girl had something to do with it.
That's mildly annoying, but if I were a black guy in the south, or a Hispanic in Arizona, and I thought I got more tickets because cops didn't like me as much, I think my annoyance would be more than mild.
Any system can be abused if the cops have a financial incentive to issue tickets; cameras don't change that. They do prevent issuing tickets based on who the offender is.
If you want to convince people to find and fix problems in the system, whether that's corrupt cops or excessively low speed limits, unbiased, consistent enforcement is a good thing.
Yes, because we don't live in a democracy where we can have any effect on what the laws are, or whether bad ones get repealed.
Your answer is not to get rid of bad laws, but rather to oppose any effective enforcement mechanism that removes potentially biased humans from the system?
He's not protesting the injustice of the law. He's protesting the injustice of the law being enforced effectively.
If he thinks keeping bad laws, but just making sure they are not effectively or consistently enforced is a good idea, he is more than welcome to make that point, and this is a lovely, creative way to do so. I will fight tooth and nail to protect his freedom to say that.
And I'll use my freedom to say: I think he's incredibly stupid. His childish, moronic tantrum is in defense of an idea that only enables corruption and totalitarian tendencies in police forces. Selective enforcement is an actual evil that he promotes because an impartial automatic system caught him breaking a rule and he doesn't want to be held responsible for his actions. What a douche.
Right. Just like this guy is arguing the speed limit should be changed by a democratic vote, not that the law should go quietly unenforced when he violates it. Oh wait...
"Traffic cameras are a slap in the face of freedom."
Why?
If the speed limit itself is not the problem, how does the technology of the enforcement mechanism make any difference? I don't understand why having a human issuing tickets protects freedom. It just seems more expensive and potentially less impartial.
I don't expect Nascar fans have less general respect for speed limits than the general population. I certainly expect spectators leaving the racetrack are more likely to speed than the general population; or even that themselves when going to the store for milk or whatever. That's just human nature. It's the same reason I ride faster on my bike when thinking about the pro cycling race I saw on TV than when thinking about what I have to do at work.
Entirely anecdotally, my friend the state trooper told a funny story with exactly the same point: He would park a little way down the road from the local racetrack, and listen to the cars peeling out of the parking lot. You couldn't ticket them all, so you'd wait for the ones who's tires squealed multiple times as they went up through the gears.
"When I first heard it I thought it was incoherence, I didn't recognize it actually meant anything."
Ah! Let me help you out then: When people say "begs the question", they mean "obviously raises the question". All the time, every time. We all understand each other fine. The only noise complicating the signal is an occasional person yammering on about how they refuse to admit they know exactly what we mean. If you refuse to understand modern English, as it is used by nearly all speakers and writers, it is not the fault of the speakers and writers.
This is not an example of commonly shared sloppy language, but of a perfectly clear and distinct meaning that has entirely supplanted the original.
"The signal-to-noise ratio is an objective measure of the usefulness of your speech"
If you declare common, well understood usage to be "noise" because it is not proper, your argument begs the question. I claim both meanings can coexist, because the one being used is always clear from context. You may claim I'm wrong, but that begs the question: Why don't you provide an example?
If you use "begs the question" to mean "raises the question" everyone will understand what you meant, and a tiny few of them will think you a fool for not meaning "assumes its conclusion".
If you use "begs the question" to mean "assumes its conclusion" everyone will misunderstand what you meant, and a tiny few of them will think you a fool for not meaning "assumes its conclusion".
Which is only because people don't pay enough attention to each other, since (without really trying) you can't use "begs the question" in a way that is ambiguous between the two. So there isn't really any reason to mind it having two meanings unless you just enjoy telling people they are objectively wrong about things such as language that are not subject to objective standards.
Yes, it does! Language means what people mean when they use it. A phrase first coined to mean one thing in one context but widely used to also mean another thing in a different context may also means that other thing. You may specify that threshold as you like, and "Begs the question" will be well beyond it, as it nearly always means what you say it doesn't.
If you hear someone say, "begs the question" outside a philosophy seminar, they mean "raises the question" every time. If you use "begs the question" to mean "assumes its conclusion", everyone who hears you will misunderstand. In the extremely unlikely case that one of your listeners knows the original meaning, they will misunderstand, assume you are misusing it, and pedantically correct you. Which will waste the time of everyone in your philosophy seminar.
But really, words and phrases can have multiple meanings, and often first acquire them through misapplication. These two meanings are not in conflict, as they cannot apply in similar contexts. Only a declarative statement can properly raise a question, whereas only a deductive inference may properly depend upon the assumption of its conclusion. Are capable of parsing closely enough to distinguish the two or not? Complaining that "begs the question" has multiple meanings is not only trying to sweep back the tide, it is lazy pedantry.
You know, there is no report either way about whether alien flying saucers helped dump the tea. Would forming any conclusion on that be unscientific?
The absence of evidence that your theory predicts should exist indicates your theory is wrong or incomplete. This is the very essence of science.
There being no evidence, in the form of reporting, your theory "Someone was killed" is wrong or incomplete. Unless I misunderstood, you hoped to complete your theory with the further postulate "The event was not well reported." Unfortunately, this is false. It was widely reported and debated. Various persons (e.g. Franklin) insisted the mobs actions were unjustified, and that they ought to pay for the tea. But none of them ever says "Oh, yeah, shame about that innocent sailor you butchered."
Having been informed that your postulate is false, you would like to let it go. Only to spare my feelings of course, not out of any reluctance to admit you didn't know what you were talking about. Well, I appreciate your concern.
"Yeah, that's what I thought as well. Seemed like all of the above was hearsay, and that none of it was recorded properly at all."
No, what I said isn't what you thought and are still saying; It does not seem like it is all hearsay; It was all recorded quite extensively. The event was heavily reported. Heated debates were had over whether the tea ought to be paid for. Suggesting someone probably got killed isn't just unfounded speculation, it's outright denial of well founded history.
"I wasn't aware that we had accurate historical records of the event. Can we be certain that no one was killed?"
Well, be aware. We have eyewitness accounts from several participants and uninvolved bystanders, and multiple newspaper stories. They are not in perfect agreement as far as matters like where exactly along the warf the ship was, or what time the last of the tea was dumped. Based upon them one can certainly debate more possibly significant matters like how well planned the event was and by whom. (In actuality, the probably apocryphal plannning by Adams has so entered our National mythos that all the arguments are about where-on-the-warf the tourist-trinket-sellers ought to congregate)
But none of these accounts make any mention whatsoever of anyone being killed. It seems not only unlikely, but wholly fantastic to imagine that in the course of the bitter arguments that followed over whether the action was justified, nobody would happen to mention a murder in the midst of it. So yes, I think we can be pretty certain no one was killed.
Dozens. Maybe hundreds. Off the top of my head I'd guess half of the bugs I encounter produce a quick crash. The other half all produce 'advanced and orderly', or as I'd put it, entirely normal looking, but wrong, data. The smaller the change, the more likely the data produced will look right enough that the rest of the code won't be derailed. So flip a single bit, and most times, it won't crash; it will just give you the wrong answer.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want ads.
I do want free apps.
In some cases, my desire for free apps might be greater than my desire to not have ads.
The more vendors that are competing, the more likely one of them will figure out how to make them unobtrusive enough that I don't mind them.
Everyone defending Apple seems to be pointing out their actions aren't illegal, which is almost certainly true.
You can still be reducing competition against the interests of consumers without being an illegal monopoly.
I'm not the Attorney General, I don't care if Apple is breaking the law. I care if they are being obnoxious control freaks, which I think they are. But I decided that years ago and stopped buying their products, so I don't suppose they care.
You pay X dollars to run your ad alongside specific programs with specific ratings broken down to tell you the specific demographic profile of the viewers they will deliver.
Just taking the one company that does this that we've all heard of: Neilsen's annual revenue is 5 Billion.
Right, if you use Googles browser, and set Google as your home page, you must be doing it specifically to quickly get the links to Googles Mail and News.
Which don't show up, because your mouse is over the home button, not the page.
So yes, the fade in is really extra-stupid for Chrome users. :)
They didn't "default it to on". They made it impossible to turn off. You could pick an image via that link, but if you didn't, or if you did and them clicked "Remove Background Image", you got a rotating collection of Google-selected images. The intent was to do this for a day to publicize this exciting new feature.
By the middle of the day they turned it off. They say because a bug made their explanatory link disappear for some users. (I saw it) I suspect the real reason was more to do with "turn off Google background image" being in their top-ten searches for the day.
Of course, if you use Chrome, as we expect Google might approve of, the address bar will do a search. So the links are the whole point of using Google as a homepage. So you hit that home button specifically to get them, but you don't because your mouse is over the button, not the page.
And if you years ago set your home page to google.com, you can get totally used to getting to Gmail or News by clicking home, then the link that will show up a few pixel below the home button you just clicked as soon as the page loads. But it won't until your brain wakes up and remembers you have to do an extra mouse-wiggle in the middle now. And you haven't had coffee, so it will be a little while. Sigh.
Different people have different usage patterns. I hit my browser home button, and I sit there for a few seconds like an idiot waiting for the Gmail or News links to appear. Then my brain wakes up, I shake the mouse about a bitr. A big deal? No. Could I change my usage pattern in about a hundred ways? Sure. But it's awfully annoying to get tripped up in the midst of a nigh-automatic pattern like that several times a day. And for what? I've heard they don't want to distract from the search bar, which doesn't sound like all that big a threat to me.
But in any case, there is a person who thought the "visual clutter" of a couple plain-text links at the edge of the page was an overwhelming problem that needed to be dealt with via the fade-in. Apparently they work on the same team with someone who thought a full-page background image of neon-painted piggy-banks was what I needed. Could we maybe lock them in a room together, so they can each save us the trouble of bitch-slapping the other? Seriously, did both of these ideas get sold to the same decision maker?
Here's a chrome plugin that does kills the fade-in in a narrowly targeted way:
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/bedfjgembbfbbdbajgfjlgfkbgmbnpnf
Let's take it slow:
The investigative reporter gets the car dealer to precisely calibrate their speedometer ( or gets an extra-exact after market one), and pays an independent expert to test it and sign a sworn affidavit as to it's accuracy. They drive past the camera at precisely one mph below the speed limit, with video tape rolling, documenting everything. They get a ticket anyway. Maybe they do it a couple times. They suprise-interview the cop responsible for calibrating the thing and get some footage of him mumbling lame excuses. Finally, they air a big splashy expose on the 6 o'clock News.
You don't think they can fight the ticket? You don't think there might be reporters with the daring bravery to risk fighting a ticket with that kind of evidence when the downside is (horror of horrors) points on their license! or insurance charges their employer would presumably cover! (neither of which you get for a photo radar ticket in my state, but I digress).
Yikes! You may be utterly paralyzed by your fear of authority possibly frowning in your direction, but I assure you, some people have the trivially minuscule stones required to risk having to pay a fine worth a whole tenth of a percent of what they'll make while working on their story about fraudulently issued fines.
If a traffic camera captures a picture of your car speeding that's evidence, not a conviction. Police collect evidence of various crimes by various methods; investigating a possible crime is not treating anyone as guilty.
"If a traffic camera captures my car speeding, how can it tell if I was driving, I let a friend drive, or it was stolen?"
Cameras can't tell anything and don't conclude anything; they are tools. When one took a picture of my car speeding, the police force using it could tell I was driving because the system took a picture of my car, a close-up of the license plate, and another of my smiling face behind the wheel. The form I got in the mail had a simple check-box to let me say I was willing to swear under penalty of perjury that the person in the picture was not me. Under Colorado law, if I did that, I don't owe a fine, and I don't have to tell them who it is.
"Here in Missouri, all red light cameras where ruled to be against the constitution and banned from use."
No, they were not. It was found unconstitutional for local municipalities to handle citations issued for running red lights in local administrative hearings (as they might a parking ticket). Rather the court ruled that state law requires moving violations (such as running a red light) be heard in Circuit or District court. Which really just means citations for running a red light based on evidence gathered by automated cameras aren't any different from those based on any other sort of evidence (such as a cop who witnessed it). So jurisdictions in Missouri are perfectly free to use red-light cameras to gather evidence of violations, and to issue citations based on them. But you can fight the citation in court, which will probably cost them more than the fine even if you lose. So that protects your rights and removes the inappropriate financial incentive for cities to operate the cameras as a revenue generator.
So in one case, a state Attorney General issues an inappropriate subpoena to try to stop internet criticism, it's obviously a ridiculous failure, and the headline in the newspaper is "Stunning Abuse of Power". He may even lose the election because of it.
In the other case, the national government issues an official policy stating that online criticism of the state will not be tolerated and perpetrators will be jailed. The newspapers all support the government because it owns them. This won't impact elections, because they don't have any.
Somehow, I am not having difficulty distinguishing these. Attempts to quash free speech ought to to be called out and combated. If you live in PA, you ought to vote against this tool. But come on: If you're trying to claim Pennsylvania is at all comparably oppressive to China, you're crazy.
On the other hand, if you're trying to point out that the're is nothing magical about being an American; that totalitarian tools can rise to power and gain the support of PA Republicans as easily as Chinese Communists; that our vastly superior freedoms are only the result of historical luck and constant vigilance... then I'm with you, obviously.
I've only gotten one automated-camera ticket. I knew I was getting a ticket right when the flash went off and the fine was due in about the same timeframe as with a human cop.
"Oh, and if you think about protesting it, there is a good chance the fine will double because you didn't pay it quickly enough"
I've experienced this system, and don't approve. Nothing to do with cameras though; same deal with human-issued tickets.
"Now as long as everything is on the up and up, fine. But what happens when the camera is 'adjusted' a bit? It will be extremely hard to determine whether the tickets are fair or not."
What happens if the human cops say-so is 'adjusted' a bit? I've gotten tickets. I'd have no way of knowing if he added a couple MPH. I'm sure that happens. The camera system has the advantage that is could be independently audited more easily. You can check if someone 'adjusted' a camera after the fact, but if a cop just decided to lie, there's no physical evidence to check.
I agree it is unlikely that the court will entertain the idea the camera is inaccurate, but it's not more likely they will believe the cop is lying.
So I don't see the disadvantage of cameras, but what about the advantages? As a teenager, I got pulled over maybe 5 times. I got a ticket every time. My friend got pulled over a lot more, but usually didn't get tickets. I can only speculate that her being an attractive, flirty girl had something to do with it.
That's mildly annoying, but if I were a black guy in the south, or a Hispanic in Arizona, and I thought I got more tickets because cops didn't like me as much, I think my annoyance would be more than mild.
Any system can be abused if the cops have a financial incentive to issue tickets; cameras don't change that. They do prevent issuing tickets based on who the offender is.
If you want to convince people to find and fix problems in the system, whether that's corrupt cops or excessively low speed limits, unbiased, consistent enforcement is a good thing.
Yes, because we don't live in a democracy where we can have any effect on what the laws are, or whether bad ones get repealed.
Your answer is not to get rid of bad laws, but rather to oppose any effective enforcement mechanism that removes potentially biased humans from the system?
He's not protesting the injustice of the law. He's protesting the injustice of the law being enforced effectively.
If he thinks keeping bad laws, but just making sure they are not effectively or consistently enforced is a good idea, he is more than welcome to make that point, and this is a lovely, creative way to do so. I will fight tooth and nail to protect his freedom to say that.
And I'll use my freedom to say: I think he's incredibly stupid. His childish, moronic tantrum is in defense of an idea that only enables corruption and totalitarian tendencies in police forces. Selective enforcement is an actual evil that he promotes because an impartial automatic system caught him breaking a rule and he doesn't want to be held responsible for his actions. What a douche.
Right. Just like this guy is arguing the speed limit should be changed by a democratic vote, not that the law should go quietly unenforced when he violates it. Oh wait...
"Traffic cameras are a slap in the face of freedom."
Why?
If the speed limit itself is not the problem, how does the technology of the enforcement mechanism make any difference? I don't understand why having a human issuing tickets protects freedom. It just seems more expensive and potentially less impartial.
I don't expect Nascar fans have less general respect for speed limits than the general population. I certainly expect spectators leaving the racetrack are more likely to speed than the general population; or even that themselves when going to the store for milk or whatever. That's just human nature. It's the same reason I ride faster on my bike when thinking about the pro cycling race I saw on TV than when thinking about what I have to do at work.
Entirely anecdotally, my friend the state trooper told a funny story with exactly the same point: He would park a little way down the road from the local racetrack, and listen to the cars peeling out of the parking lot. You couldn't ticket them all, so you'd wait for the ones who's tires squealed multiple times as they went up through the gears.
"When I first heard it I thought it was incoherence, I didn't recognize it actually meant anything."
Ah! Let me help you out then: When people say "begs the question", they mean "obviously raises the question". All the time, every time. We all understand each other fine. The only noise complicating the signal is an occasional person yammering on about how they refuse to admit they know exactly what we mean. If you refuse to understand modern English, as it is used by nearly all speakers and writers, it is not the fault of the speakers and writers.
This is not an example of commonly shared sloppy language, but of a perfectly clear and distinct meaning that has entirely supplanted the original.
"The signal-to-noise ratio is an objective measure of the usefulness of your speech"
If you declare common, well understood usage to be "noise" because it is not proper, your argument begs the question. I claim both meanings can coexist, because the one being used is always clear from context. You may claim I'm wrong, but that begs the question: Why don't you provide an example?
If you use "begs the question" to mean "raises the question" everyone will understand what you meant, and a tiny few of them will think you a fool for not meaning "assumes its conclusion".
If you use "begs the question" to mean "assumes its conclusion" everyone will misunderstand what you meant, and a tiny few of them will think you a fool for not meaning "assumes its conclusion".
Which is only because people don't pay enough attention to each other, since (without really trying) you can't use "begs the question" in a way that is ambiguous between the two. So there isn't really any reason to mind it having two meanings unless you just enjoy telling people they are objectively wrong about things such as language that are not subject to objective standards.
Yes, it does! Language means what people mean when they use it. A phrase first coined to mean one thing in one context but widely used to also mean another thing in a different context may also means that other thing. You may specify that threshold as you like, and "Begs the question" will be well beyond it, as it nearly always means what you say it doesn't.
If you hear someone say, "begs the question" outside a philosophy seminar, they mean "raises the question" every time. If you use "begs the question" to mean "assumes its conclusion", everyone who hears you will misunderstand. In the extremely unlikely case that one of your listeners knows the original meaning, they will misunderstand, assume you are misusing it, and pedantically correct you. Which will waste the time of everyone in your philosophy seminar.
But really, words and phrases can have multiple meanings, and often first acquire them through misapplication. These two meanings are not in conflict, as they cannot apply in similar contexts. Only a declarative statement can properly raise a question, whereas only a deductive inference may properly depend upon the assumption of its conclusion. Are capable of parsing closely enough to distinguish the two or not? Complaining that "begs the question" has multiple meanings is not only trying to sweep back the tide, it is lazy pedantry.
You know, there is no report either way about whether alien flying saucers helped dump the tea. Would forming any conclusion on that be unscientific?
The absence of evidence that your theory predicts should exist indicates your theory is wrong or incomplete. This is the very essence of science.
There being no evidence, in the form of reporting, your theory "Someone was killed" is wrong or incomplete. Unless I misunderstood, you hoped to complete your theory with the further postulate "The event was not well reported." Unfortunately, this is false. It was widely reported and debated. Various persons (e.g. Franklin) insisted the mobs actions were unjustified, and that they ought to pay for the tea. But none of them ever says "Oh, yeah, shame about that innocent sailor you butchered."
Having been informed that your postulate is false, you would like to let it go. Only to spare my feelings of course, not out of any reluctance to admit you didn't know what you were talking about. Well, I appreciate your concern.
"Yeah, that's what I thought as well. Seemed like all of the above was hearsay, and that none of it was recorded properly at all."
No, what I said isn't what you thought and are still saying; It does not seem like it is all hearsay; It was all recorded quite extensively. The event was heavily reported. Heated debates were had over whether the tea ought to be paid for. Suggesting someone probably got killed isn't just unfounded speculation, it's outright denial of well founded history.
"I wasn't aware that we had accurate historical records of the event. Can we be certain that no one was killed?"
Well, be aware. We have eyewitness accounts from several participants and uninvolved bystanders, and multiple newspaper stories. They are not in perfect agreement as far as matters like where exactly along the warf the ship was, or what time the last of the tea was dumped. Based upon them one can certainly debate more possibly significant matters like how well planned the event was and by whom. (In actuality, the probably apocryphal plannning by Adams has so entered our National mythos that all the arguments are about where-on-the-warf the tourist-trinket-sellers ought to congregate)
But none of these accounts make any mention whatsoever of anyone being killed. It seems not only unlikely, but wholly fantastic to imagine that in the course of the bitter arguments that followed over whether the action was justified, nobody would happen to mention a murder in the midst of it. So yes, I think we can be pretty certain no one was killed.
Dozens. Maybe hundreds. Off the top of my head I'd guess half of the bugs I encounter produce a quick crash. The other half all produce 'advanced and orderly', or as I'd put it, entirely normal looking, but wrong, data. The smaller the change, the more likely the data produced will look right enough that the rest of the code won't be derailed. So flip a single bit, and most times, it won't crash; it will just give you the wrong answer.
For Constitutional amendments, yes.
For Impeachments, yes.
For jack else, no.
Read your Constitution, anyone who hasn't.