"And if that's not enough of a rationalization of music piracy, we're eager to suggest others. Just watch."
Hilarious! The really funny thing is that Slashdotters didn't even stop to think twice about offering up their bogus rationalizations for ripping off the music industry. I love it!
Dear Idiots: Please find a clue-stick and proceed to hit yourselves in the head is hard as you can with it. If someone if offering music to you, but it comes at a price, pay for it, or don't. Don't be a douche and deny them their fair wage just because you think you are justified. Don't you know that you are too stupid to justify yourselves?
The central claim of Christianity is that a follower of Christ (a christian) will know God in this world, and live with Him through eternity in the next. A christian would not, therefore, believe that they are going to be cast into a lake of burning sulfur and be eternally tormented by the devil. We believe that will happen to you (assuming you are not a follower of Christ).
As with regard to whether or not the "literal" versions of God, the devil, and souls exist, I am curious how you make the distinction between the "literal" meanings of these words and other (figurative?) meanings. When I speak of spirituality and religion I am describing how unseen (or supernatural) realms can and do affect human beings. In that context I can not easily differentiate between "literal" and "figurative" meanings as nothing I attempt to describe manifests itself in the "physical" world as it is commonly known. I emphasize that spiritual entities are literally real, because I don't want people to get the idea that I am talking about these things in a hypothetical or theoretical way.
If you feel better thinking of these concepts as hypothetical or figurative, I would suggest that you do so. Do so often and with zeal. The more you consider such matters, the more you may come to know the Truth. Ultimately, there is nothing else worth knowing, and that is the central claim of Christianity.
I don't think the Bible fully endorses slavery, since it does not issue command to take slaves, nor does it say that it is good to have slaves. But you're right that it doesn't say not to have slaves.
The laws on slavery say how a slave it to be treated, and how a slave it to behave. They require that a slave be treated with dignity, and that a slave have respect for his master. They also contain guidelines for how a slave may be disciplined. Some say that this implies an endorsement, but I don't think it's the same thing.
Would you say that the Bible endorses polygamy, since it says you are not to take many wives?
No, they do not do the same thing. There is a difference between controlling an experiment and trying to prevent contamination. When you just do your best to follow proper procedures, you have no way of knowing whether your efforts have been good enough. With my data, I can produce numbers to demonstrate the accuracy of my data. All you can give me is the promise that forensic techniques are well understood and that crime scene investigators follow procedures to prevent contamination. That is not the same.
That is simply not true. I am an environmental engineer and I do a lot of environmental sampling. We use many measures to ensure control, even though the basic principles of the chemistry involved are well understood. We collect blind field duplicates and submit them to lab to make sure we get matching results, we collect equipment blanks to make sure our equipment is not contaminating the samples, the lab also runs method blanks to ensure they are not contaminating the samples, they run matrix spikes, for every sample batch where they add a known concentration of their target analytes to a field sample that has already been tested to gauge their % recovery and they run surrogates (that is chemicals that they don't expect to find) in every sample to gauge the consistency of that recovery. The samples are analyzed by an independent laboratory to prevent bias. Split samples are also sent to other labs to account for lab bias.
This is how real science is done. That stuff you're talking about is not science.
Would net neutrality prohibit ISPs from complying with this? Or is this a case where the Government would get a special exception because they don't abuse their power the way ISPs do?
"Seriously, do you really want to argue that coming up with a hypothesis and then analyzing the evidence is not a scientific approach?"
I would recommend that you read about the scientific method and pay close attention to the control aspect of the experimentation step. Without control, you may be getting a result simply due to random chance, or worse, by observational bias.
Without controlling for all but the experimental variables, you are not running a scientific experiment, and you can not claim to be employing the scientific method. So if you just dig and look for evidence, without control, you aren't following a scientifically sound process. If you are just looking for matches, but you do so in a way that employs no controls to determine the certainty of your conclusions, there's nothing scientific about that.
I would be ok with it if there were numbers to back up the "say" 99% accuracy, and those numbers were presented in court. But there aren't because the scientific method is not applied, and it's not just fingerprinting, most forensic evidence it not subject to even basic scientific controls (hair matching, footprint analysis, blood spatter, bite marks, knife marks, ballistics). These methods are heuristic, not scientific.
Prosecutors use this evidence by first hypothesizing about the guilty party and then using the forensic evidence to link them to the crime. If they gather enough evidence to make a case, they move forward with it. This is basically the same way the bomb detector is used, the guard decides which vehicle looks like it may have a bomb, then uses the detector as "evidence" that it warrants further investigation.
We need to understand how to make the distinction between this kind of heuristic investigation and a real scientific investigation. To me it looks like the borders are getting more blurred every day, when we should be moving in the opposite direction.
In all fairness to the Iraqis, much of modern forensics "science" is in a similar state in this country. Do you really believe they can match a smudged fingerprint to a single person with 100% accuracy? Then can't match DNA with that accuracy. Of course with DNA they have statistical controls, so they actually have a clue what their accuracy is.
Here's how it really works, the investigators interview everyone they think may have had something to do with it, they decided who they think is guilty and then they look for the evidence to match what they already think is true. This is the same basic principle the Iraqi bomb-detecting dousing rod works on.
So until we are in a place where everyone has a basic understanding of scientific principles, and everyone has a mind inquisitive enough to ask "does this really make sense" we will always be in a place where someone can hold up some scientific sounding technojaron and people will believe him as long as they want it to be true.
Suppose it is a pubically traded company, and the present shareholders have benefitted little from past wrongs or they didn't know about things being mishandled. Is it really fair to hold them accountable, even though law says they are not liable? Your solution is simply not reasonable, you are looking for a scapegoat to bail you out rather than taking responsability to fix the broblem. There is nothing to be gained from the lawsuits you propose.
Once the mining companies go belly-up, it's hard to say where the money's gone and who is responsible, because many people were involved. One thing is for certian, we all benefitted from the lower priced minerals, and now we all have to pay to clean up the mess.
No, you are mistaken. In CA, if your check engine light is on, you fail smog, regardless of your actual emissions. So it's not like he's driving around polluting the air, since the car has the same emissions of any other car. I had the same problem a while back. I needed to spend $800 to "fix" a $2,000 car when it's actual emissions were compliant. My solution: stop driving. You need to stop being so judgmental, the state bureaucrats really are being totally out of line on this one.
"What do you do that supports everyone else? How are you not a parasite to world like everybody else?"
I would assume the poster has a job, that's where many people get their money from. I certainly have one, I make more than $60,000 a year. But I have better things do do with my money than waste a bunch of it fixing a car that isn't broken. Our "leaders" could learn from this, but accounting for how all that money is spent is the last thing on the mind of most politicians. And many seem to view the taxpayer as a blank check to fund all of their "noble" aspirations and endeavors. There is a limit to how much can be spent, and the people deciding how and how much to spend are way out of line.
You are are restricted with what you can do with your private property in so far as it might cause injury to someone else or their property. This kind of comparison is not apt for ISPs because a business relationship exists between the ISP and the their customer which either party may voluntarily terminate at any time.
In all your examples, people are doing something anti-social that causes harm to another. What are ISPs going to do that warrants the formation of a new set of regulatory rules? Why not wait for them to start doing those things before we make new regulations?
just because you own your car, are you entitled to park it so as to block my driveway?
The city owns the road in front of my driveway, so I can call them and complain about it. The ISP has installed infrastructure at their own expense, they own it. I'm not saying they should be assholes about it, but the whole point of owning property is that the owner gets to decide how to use it. Net neutrality restricts those property rights. It also seems to be unnecessary since it is not meant to solve any existing problems, but rather speculative future problems. I don't see why there should be new regulations on ISPs if no present need exists.
In any case, since net neutrality means adding new restrictions on property rights and gives the government more authority, and it does so needlessly (at present), it clearly contradicts libertarian ideals.
Seriously?! Where do you expect me to look, given the poster was unwilling to tell me what he meant?
It's not reasonable call the internet public resource when most of the burden of producing, storing, and distributing the information falls on the private sector. With the library, at least the last two things are done by the public library, and the library does pay the publisher to buy the books so they take part in funding the production of the book as well. Moreover, there is not "book neutrality" legislation for libraries to tell them what books they need to carry.
Individual power is not a myth. I could go out by myself and live off the land for a period of time, as many others have done in the past. Of course, I would lose all the synergistic benefit of working in a group and I'd probably die after I broke a leg or contracted some ailment with no one to care for me. The thing that bothers people is that the have so little power, and they live at the mercy of their peers in times of need, and they need to trust their peers if they want to work together for mutual benefit. They don't want to accept this so they look to "leaders" and mystics and scam-artists to make their power go farther and issue guarantees and security to them. That's where the lie comes in, you've got what you've got and it's all you're going to get.
public resource - the idea that the people of the U.S. "own" the fish in U.S. waters. The government manages these resources for the greatest public benefit. Fishermen do not "own" the fish until they catch them.
In this case they are saying that the fish are a public resource until they are caught, then the fishermen own them.
If that's the case, I don't think you can make the argument that the internet is a public resource, since the contents of websites on the internet are owned by the people who created them, or to whomever they've sold the rights under copyright.
Even in the absence of copyright law, I don't see how a lack of private ownership of content accessible by the internet would mean that ISPs should be required to provide all content with the same priority.
In our society we trade power for assurances of safety and security. The safety and security is a lie, but we are content buying into the fantasy. So, that's why we trade in our power (after all each individual is not very powerful anyway). I hope that you don't have an idea that some particular system of government is exempt from this truth. All governments are the same. You are just as well off trading your power to a corporation as you are to a king or a democracy. I say don't trade your power in for a lie, but all my friends tell me I'm crazy.
Slashdot Mirror
"And if that's not enough of a rationalization of music piracy, we're eager to suggest others. Just watch."
Hilarious! The really funny thing is that Slashdotters didn't even stop to think twice about offering up their bogus rationalizations for ripping off the music industry. I love it!
Dear Idiots: Please find a clue-stick and proceed to hit yourselves in the head is hard as you can with it. If someone if offering music to you, but it comes at a price, pay for it, or don't. Don't be a douche and deny them their fair wage just because you think you are justified. Don't you know that you are too stupid to justify yourselves?
The central claim of Christianity is that a follower of Christ (a christian) will know God in this world, and live with Him through eternity in the next. A christian would not, therefore, believe that they are going to be cast into a lake of burning sulfur and be eternally tormented by the devil. We believe that will happen to you (assuming you are not a follower of Christ).
As with regard to whether or not the "literal" versions of God, the devil, and souls exist, I am curious how you make the distinction between the "literal" meanings of these words and other (figurative?) meanings. When I speak of spirituality and religion I am describing how unseen (or supernatural) realms can and do affect human beings. In that context I can not easily differentiate between "literal" and "figurative" meanings as nothing I attempt to describe manifests itself in the "physical" world as it is commonly known. I emphasize that spiritual entities are literally real, because I don't want people to get the idea that I am talking about these things in a hypothetical or theoretical way.
If you feel better thinking of these concepts as hypothetical or figurative, I would suggest that you do so. Do so often and with zeal. The more you consider such matters, the more you may come to know the Truth. Ultimately, there is nothing else worth knowing, and that is the central claim of Christianity.
"some people actually choose the businesses they patronize because they respect them and wish to support their ongoing operation."
Most people just patronize whatever business works the best for them, in this case that would be Google.
"I have yet to hear anyone use google to mean searching for something without using Google."
That's probably because no one uses a web search that isn't Google.
"and I don't see the idea fading any time soon"
Flash media maybe? I wonder if they can some up with an archival format for that.
I don't think the Bible fully endorses slavery, since it does not issue command to take slaves, nor does it say that it is good to have slaves. But you're right that it doesn't say not to have slaves.
The laws on slavery say how a slave it to be treated, and how a slave it to behave. They require that a slave be treated with dignity, and that a slave have respect for his master. They also contain guidelines for how a slave may be disciplined. Some say that this implies an endorsement, but I don't think it's the same thing.
Would you say that the Bible endorses polygamy, since it says you are not to take many wives?
No, they do not do the same thing. There is a difference between controlling an experiment and trying to prevent contamination. When you just do your best to follow proper procedures, you have no way of knowing whether your efforts have been good enough. With my data, I can produce numbers to demonstrate the accuracy of my data. All you can give me is the promise that forensic techniques are well understood and that crime scene investigators follow procedures to prevent contamination. That is not the same.
That is simply not true. I am an environmental engineer and I do a lot of environmental sampling. We use many measures to ensure control, even though the basic principles of the chemistry involved are well understood. We collect blind field duplicates and submit them to lab to make sure we get matching results, we collect equipment blanks to make sure our equipment is not contaminating the samples, the lab also runs method blanks to ensure they are not contaminating the samples, they run matrix spikes, for every sample batch where they add a known concentration of their target analytes to a field sample that has already been tested to gauge their % recovery and they run surrogates (that is chemicals that they don't expect to find) in every sample to gauge the consistency of that recovery. The samples are analyzed by an independent laboratory to prevent bias. Split samples are also sent to other labs to account for lab bias.
This is how real science is done. That stuff you're talking about is not science.
Would net neutrality prohibit ISPs from complying with this? Or is this a case where the Government would get a special exception because they don't abuse their power the way ISPs do?
I guess I'd rather take the wait and see approach, who knows what will happen? You can always add the regulations later if you need to.
"Seriously, do you really want to argue that coming up with a hypothesis and then analyzing the evidence is not a scientific approach?"
I would recommend that you read about the scientific method and pay close attention to the control aspect of the experimentation step. Without control, you may be getting a result simply due to random chance, or worse, by observational bias.
Without controlling for all but the experimental variables, you are not running a scientific experiment, and you can not claim to be employing the scientific method. So if you just dig and look for evidence, without control, you aren't following a scientifically sound process. If you are just looking for matches, but you do so in a way that employs no controls to determine the certainty of your conclusions, there's nothing scientific about that.
I would be ok with it if there were numbers to back up the "say" 99% accuracy, and those numbers were presented in court. But there aren't because the scientific method is not applied, and it's not just fingerprinting, most forensic evidence it not subject to even basic scientific controls (hair matching, footprint analysis, blood spatter, bite marks, knife marks, ballistics). These methods are heuristic, not scientific.
Prosecutors use this evidence by first hypothesizing about the guilty party and then using the forensic evidence to link them to the crime. If they gather enough evidence to make a case, they move forward with it. This is basically the same way the bomb detector is used, the guard decides which vehicle looks like it may have a bomb, then uses the detector as "evidence" that it warrants further investigation.
We need to understand how to make the distinction between this kind of heuristic investigation and a real scientific investigation. To me it looks like the borders are getting more blurred every day, when we should be moving in the opposite direction.
In all fairness to the Iraqis, much of modern forensics "science" is in a similar state in this country. Do you really believe they can match a smudged fingerprint to a single person with 100% accuracy? Then can't match DNA with that accuracy. Of course with DNA they have statistical controls, so they actually have a clue what their accuracy is.
Here's how it really works, the investigators interview everyone they think may have had something to do with it, they decided who they think is guilty and then they look for the evidence to match what they already think is true. This is the same basic principle the Iraqi bomb-detecting dousing rod works on.
So until we are in a place where everyone has a basic understanding of scientific principles, and everyone has a mind inquisitive enough to ask "does this really make sense" we will always be in a place where someone can hold up some scientific sounding technojaron and people will believe him as long as they want it to be true.
Isn't experimentation an important part of innovation?
Suppose it is a pubically traded company, and the present shareholders have benefitted little from past wrongs or they didn't know about things being mishandled. Is it really fair to hold them accountable, even though law says they are not liable? Your solution is simply not reasonable, you are looking for a scapegoat to bail you out rather than taking responsability to fix the broblem. There is nothing to be gained from the lawsuits you propose.
Once the mining companies go belly-up, it's hard to say where the money's gone and who is responsible, because many people were involved. One thing is for certian, we all benefitted from the lower priced minerals, and now we all have to pay to clean up the mess.
It's good to see a corporation winning a $700,000,000 against an individual once in a while.
No, you are mistaken. In CA, if your check engine light is on, you fail smog, regardless of your actual emissions. So it's not like he's driving around polluting the air, since the car has the same emissions of any other car. I had the same problem a while back. I needed to spend $800 to "fix" a $2,000 car when it's actual emissions were compliant. My solution: stop driving. You need to stop being so judgmental, the state bureaucrats really are being totally out of line on this one.
"What do you do that supports everyone else? How are you not a parasite to world like everybody else?"
I would assume the poster has a job, that's where many people get their money from. I certainly have one, I make more than $60,000 a year. But I have better things do do with my money than waste a bunch of it fixing a car that isn't broken. Our "leaders" could learn from this, but accounting for how all that money is spent is the last thing on the mind of most politicians. And many seem to view the taxpayer as a blank check to fund all of their "noble" aspirations and endeavors. There is a limit to how much can be spent, and the people deciding how and how much to spend are way out of line.
You are are restricted with what you can do with your private property in so far as it might cause injury to someone else or their property. This kind of comparison is not apt for ISPs because a business relationship exists between the ISP and the their customer which either party may voluntarily terminate at any time.
In all your examples, people are doing something anti-social that causes harm to another. What are ISPs going to do that warrants the formation of a new set of regulatory rules? Why not wait for them to start doing those things before we make new regulations?
just because you own your car, are you entitled to park it so as to block my driveway?
The city owns the road in front of my driveway, so I can call them and complain about it. The ISP has installed infrastructure at their own expense, they own it. I'm not saying they should be assholes about it, but the whole point of owning property is that the owner gets to decide how to use it. Net neutrality restricts those property rights. It also seems to be unnecessary since it is not meant to solve any existing problems, but rather speculative future problems. I don't see why there should be new regulations on ISPs if no present need exists.
In any case, since net neutrality means adding new restrictions on property rights and gives the government more authority, and it does so needlessly (at present), it clearly contradicts libertarian ideals.
Seriously?! Where do you expect me to look, given the poster was unwilling to tell me what he meant?
It's not reasonable call the internet public resource when most of the burden of producing, storing, and distributing the information falls on the private sector. With the library, at least the last two things are done by the public library, and the library does pay the publisher to buy the books so they take part in funding the production of the book as well. Moreover, there is not "book neutrality" legislation for libraries to tell them what books they need to carry.
Individual power is not a myth. I could go out by myself and live off the land for a period of time, as many others have done in the past. Of course, I would lose all the synergistic benefit of working in a group and I'd probably die after I broke a leg or contracted some ailment with no one to care for me. The thing that bothers people is that the have so little power, and they live at the mercy of their peers in times of need, and they need to trust their peers if they want to work together for mutual benefit. They don't want to accept this so they look to "leaders" and mystics and scam-artists to make their power go farther and issue guarantees and security to them. That's where the lie comes in, you've got what you've got and it's all you're going to get.
Yes, I honestly do. Here's what Google says:
public resource - the idea that the people of the U.S. "own" the fish in U.S. waters. The government manages these resources for the greatest public benefit. Fishermen do not "own" the fish until they catch them.
In this case they are saying that the fish are a public resource until they are caught, then the fishermen own them.
If that's the case, I don't think you can make the argument that the internet is a public resource, since the contents of websites on the internet are owned by the people who created them, or to whomever they've sold the rights under copyright.
Even in the absence of copyright law, I don't see how a lack of private ownership of content accessible by the internet would mean that ISPs should be required to provide all content with the same priority.
In our society we trade power for assurances of safety and security. The safety and security is a lie, but we are content buying into the fantasy. So, that's why we trade in our power (after all each individual is not very powerful anyway). I hope that you don't have an idea that some particular system of government is exempt from this truth. All governments are the same. You are just as well off trading your power to a corporation as you are to a king or a democracy. I say don't trade your power in for a lie, but all my friends tell me I'm crazy.
There were restrictions and stipulations put on them at that time. These are new regulations, which would be added after the fact. That is unfair.