The other day I was talking to someone that couldn't tell me whether the end on what ended up being his ethernet cord was metal or plastic. Even after he told me he could see the wires inside [...]
Haven't ye ever heard a' transparent aluminum, laddie?
If you believe that an analogy that involves both rape and copyright infringement (and I say "involves" because the analogy does not compare rape to copyright infringement) is inherently distasteful, then you are entitled to your opinion. But the fact that you find it distasteful does not imply that the analogy is flawed. If you wish to show that the analogy is flawed, you have to do more than appeal to emotions . It's also not enough to merely point out that rape and copyright infringement differ in kind and not just degree. I agree with you that the offenses differ in kind. But the analogy doesn't compare the offenses, it compares the structure of the reasoning that, in each case, is used to justify the offenses.
Good point. There is no reason to believe that if the essence of the person's brain were "running" on artificial hardware, it would be any less conscious and be any less convinced that it is, in fact, the same person.
"It would be most interesting to impress your memory engrams on a computer, doctor. The resulting torrential flood of illogic would be most entertaining." --Spock, to Dr. McCoy, in "The Ultimate Computer"
That was the sound of his point flying over your head.
Let me explain to you what an analogy is, by explaining what it is not. An analogy is not a direct comparison of two things for purposes of asserting their equivalence in terms of, for example, degree of severity. Your objection to his analogy, i.e. that raping someone is not comparable to copyright infringement, would have made sense if he were proposing that people who infringed on copyrights should be raped as punishment. But that's not what his point was. His point was to show the logical fallacy in the reasoning of those who try to justify copyright infringement, by showing that reasoning of the same form can be used to justify rape. Since the absurdity of the conclusion of that reasoning (i.e. that rape is justifiable) is much more readily apparent, the analogy serves to show why the reasoning is also flawed when used to justify copyright infringement, where the outcome is much less severe, and the absurdity of the conclusion much less obvious.
You mean the "changes in electric field strength" got there a little quicker. At typical electron drift speeds, and the clock frequencies in question, I doubt any electrons ever traversed a wire of appreciable length in the first place.
I can't understand how someone can ask a yes or no question, and someone else can post a single word reply saying "yes" with no explanation or justification, and get modded up to +5 insightful.
Homer is great because he captured Greek culture and managed to pass down to posterity a story that express the goals, hopes and dreams of that culture.
Plus, I love the way he says, "Mmmmmm... donuts!". Cracks me up every time.
I get email notification of all replies, so I read all replies.
You foe'd me because I foe'd you first. I foe'd you after our discussion of the (unfair, in my opinion) paraphrasing of Gore's remarks regarding the creation of the Internet. Although I wouldn't foe someone for being critical of Gore's remarks, or for believing that what was attributed to him was a fair paraphrasing, I felt that, in a debate specifically about the fairness of that paraphrasing, to use the phrase "what he actually said" in reference to the paraphrase and not the words that emanated from his lips, was disingenuous at best.
However, I've seen enough of your posts since then to know that you're not the troll I thought you were. So, I'm un-foe-ing you as well.
Slashdot Mirror
The other day I was talking to someone that couldn't tell me whether the end on what ended up being his ethernet cord was metal or plastic. Even after he told me he could see the wires inside [...]
Haven't ye ever heard a' transparent aluminum, laddie?
Bribing your neighbor would result in his financial gain. What we seem to be talking about here is blackmailing your neighbor.
... we like looking at semi-naked...
Well, you're half right.
If you believe that an analogy that involves both rape and copyright infringement (and I say "involves" because the analogy does not compare rape to copyright infringement) is inherently distasteful, then you are entitled to your opinion. But the fact that you find it distasteful does not imply that the analogy is flawed. If you wish to show that the analogy is flawed, you have to do more than appeal to emotions . It's also not enough to merely point out that rape and copyright infringement differ in kind and not just degree. I agree with you that the offenses differ in kind. But the analogy doesn't compare the offenses, it compares the structure of the reasoning that, in each case, is used to justify the offenses.
Good point. There is no reason to believe that if the essence of the person's brain were "running" on artificial hardware, it would be any less conscious and be any less convinced that it is, in fact, the same person.
"It would be most interesting to impress your memory engrams on a computer, doctor. The resulting torrential flood of illogic would be most entertaining."
--Spock, to Dr. McCoy, in "The Ultimate Computer"
Yes. The rest of us were wondering what George Dantzig has to do with Pi.
He figured it was just a prediction. The year is still young.
Well, then, if you believe my wife and my mother, I must be infinitely intelligent.
That was the sound of his point flying over your head.
Let me explain to you what an analogy is, by explaining what it is not. An analogy is not a direct comparison of two things for purposes of asserting their equivalence in terms of, for example, degree of severity. Your objection to his analogy, i.e. that raping someone is not comparable to copyright infringement, would have made sense if he were proposing that people who infringed on copyrights should be raped as punishment. But that's not what his point was. His point was to show the logical fallacy in the reasoning of those who try to justify copyright infringement, by showing that reasoning of the same form can be used to justify rape. Since the absurdity of the conclusion of that reasoning (i.e. that rape is justifiable) is much more readily apparent, the analogy serves to show why the reasoning is also flawed when used to justify copyright infringement, where the outcome is much less severe, and the absurdity of the conclusion much less obvious.
Hope this helps.
... that acronyms don't have mass, otherwise your post would collapse into a black hole and swallow up all of Slashdot.
A one-word answer would be perfectly legitimate for any of those questions, but it wouldn't be insightful.
so the electrons will get there a little quicker.
You mean the "changes in electric field strength" got there a little quicker. At typical electron drift speeds, and the clock frequencies in question, I doubt any electrons ever traversed a wire of appreciable length in the first place.
I can't understand how someone can ask a yes or no question, and someone else can post a single word reply saying "yes" with no explanation or justification, and get modded up to +5 insightful.
People who are not interested in reading this researcher's "ad" are also not likely to be interested in taking the time to respond "no" to his survey.
If Bush said the same thing, he would never be allowed off the hook and would receive 10x the bashing.
Bush took credit for a Texas Patients' Bill of Rights Act that he vetoed, and he hasn't even received 1/10 the bashing.
With a PG-13 rating, parents will be forced to go with their children to watch the movie
Any father with children under 13 is young enough to want to see this movie himself anyway.
Homer is great because he captured Greek culture and managed to pass down to posterity a story that express the goals, hopes and dreams of that culture.
Plus, I love the way he says, "Mmmmmm... donuts!". Cracks me up every time.
Assuming by "fractional" you mean "rational", the ratio of two whole numbers
No, he means fractional. It's exactly equal to 1.0 in base Pi.
I'm waiting for Apple to build a large rack system and call it a "Big Mac". It can't miss!
He who would sacrifice essential conveniences for a little bit of temporary security deserves neither convenience nor security.
Sorry, Ben.
I wonder if anyone has described this plane as "uncrashable".
I get email notification of all replies, so I read all replies.
You foe'd me because I foe'd you first. I foe'd you after our discussion of the (unfair, in my opinion) paraphrasing of Gore's remarks regarding the creation of the Internet. Although I wouldn't foe someone for being critical of Gore's remarks, or for believing that what was attributed to him was a fair paraphrasing, I felt that, in a debate specifically about the fairness of that paraphrasing, to use the phrase "what he actually said" in reference to the paraphrase and not the words that emanated from his lips, was disingenuous at best.
However, I've seen enough of your posts since then to know that you're not the troll I thought you were. So, I'm un-foe-ing you as well.
I have +1 modifiers for both foes and freaks, and my highlight threshold is set at 4, so I pretty much see everything you write. :)
I keep a pair of fuzzy dice hanging from my rear view mirror.