Nearly all governments, and most people, believe that patents encourage innovation by ensuring that innovators can profit from their investment of time and resources
Given your blanket generalization I'll retort "No, they don't". Numerous countries have been force into following the American model to compete (Europe), but that is not the same thing as "agreeing" as you so bluntly claimed. China has ignored US patents and Copyrights for decades, with no detriment to their trade. In fact the trade deficit between the US and China has consistently grown.
The US strong arming someone into enforcing US Patent laws is not the same thing as a country agreeing with the Laws. Perhaps you should consider why numerous countries are very hostile toward US companies, especially in the Medical and Agricultural sectors.
The fact that all of these meetings are being held in secrecy and away from public discourse is very telling. Like NAFTA, this is being touted as something great for free trade, but in fact is intended to benefit an oligarchical subset of society. Worse, that same subset has no consideration for the remainder of the citizens of the USA.
Simple, write your Reps and get them to denounce this garbage legislation. Vote them out of office if they don't denounce this bill and distance themselves. If you have 2 candidates that both want the bill, petition your own candidate on the ballot and lose the cronies.
Be warned too, that just like SOPA this is going to continually be pushed behind the scenes under new names and false pretenses.
The modding is wrong. If I had not already commented in the thread I would correct the censorship.
Why is the post correct? Because the problem isn't with Capitalism, it's with what we have today which is anything but what Adam Smith envisioned when describing Capitalism (read the damn books). What we have today is a gross bastardization that we are calling Capitalism, but in reality it's working closer to Mercantilism. The failures harming everyone except for the wealthy are the same failures we had under Mercantilism as well.
Milton Friedman wrote numerous books telling us where things were headed after the continual reduction in regulations, and nobody wanted to listen. Dr. Friedman was a pro Capitalist, about as pro capitalist and libertarian as you will find in a Nobel prize winning Economist.
More often than not, I'm happy to hold dialogue on Philosophy and try to teach people. In this particular case, I see no benefit for doing so. Your comment is a tangent which won't invalidate any of my points. Therefor, I lack the energy to even try. That said, I'll give you a few points of history to study which will put you on the path to my perspective.
1. Plato's The Republic. The whole thing, not just a single allegory or book. I don't expect you to get it at the first read, but rather grasp basic concepts and definitions. No offense is intended, I still learn new things every time I read the book. Frankly I have read at least 5 translations and each of those several times. I prefer "The Cambridge Text" version since it includes most of the historical references you need. As you suggested earlier, this requires a scholarly approach, not a glance or glimpse of the book. Main goals are to understand the definition of Justice, and "The Allegory of the Cave" completely. From Socrates's perspective it is the duty of the enlightened to free the masses from the cave, and that people will fight and to the death to remain in the cave.
Next, study history. Start with Athens and it's fall and follow that up through the US Revolution and find the root causes for the revolutions. While surely we can find numerous corollary explanations, a main theme is that the masses are oppressed to a point where there is no choice but to revolt. If you don't like US History, try the French Revolution from roughly the same time period. If you don't like Western history, try the Bolshevik Revolution where again the oppressed masses was the theme of the revolution (with obviously different results than a Republic). More recently, we have the Ukraine which revolted for the same reasons, though in fairness quite different extremes. Constant revolutions in Africa and the Middle East over the same theme again. The difference in stability between the US and Egypt for example, is that Egypt's revolutions were not successful in removing entrenched people who behave as an oppressive oligarchy where the US built in numerous protections (which continually been revoked over the last couple of decades).
You are correct regarding 1913. I am sure that progressive tax was no in place for long, and the system moved to a fixed scale a few years after inception. This is what answers the question for 1913.
I did not check every year, but by 1925 the progressive scale was removed. 1950 backs my statement that it was not progressive for long, but you can go year to year and figure out when it was removed past 1913. I also checked 1968, 1969, 1970, and 1971 and there are no progressive scales there either. The tax rate when Nixon took office was 90% if you made more than 1,000,000/yr without any progression (that you claimed existed).
Your statement that it was progressive is wrong for the majority, and in fact demonstrates that as the misconception. Even if you assume that every year prior to 1925 was using progressive, this makes a very small minority of years and a tax system that was disbanded long before Nixon, let alone Reagan..
British rule over the US is a prime example that every American should learn from serious scholarship, not the national myths presented in school textbooks
You start with a fair point, then move to a false assertion. While we could surely find discrepancies of opinion between Britain and the US on rationality that lead to the revolution, your claim that one side is a Myth is grossly biased.
The "momentum changing" which you refer to wasn't just public opinion swaying through peaceful debate, it was revolutionaries e.g. burning down the houses of that significant portion of the population that remained loyal to Britain.
From bias to an appeal to emotion, so we move down hill from what was a good first statement. Your generalization fails to account for people that were turning in "revolutionaries" for money, land, property, and promises. There were plenty of loyalists who were not really loyal, but saw the opportunity for personal gain at the expense of others.
When you speak with great anticipation of another revolution, one wonders if you respect rule of law and respect for your community at all, as long as a violent struggle is for a political outcome you like.
Ahh, the grand fallacy saved for last. You claim to know my mind so much better than I do, and you are absolutely wrong on all accounts. First, I don't "greatly anticipate" a revolt, in fact I encourage people in political offices to correct issues so that there is no need. At the same time I have studied, and do study, enough history to know that without changes a revolt of some type is inevitable.
Remember that the US was founded to protect individual liberty, not an oligarchy and/or "the great society". It is the latter path that leads to a societies downfall, not the former.
History shows that this mentality is not permanent. British rule over the US is a prime example that every US student should learn in public schools. People took a lot of crap from the Brits for a long time, and there was a point where momentum changed and we had a revolt.
The US is not very far from this today.
On the momentum behind the pro nanny state, most of the people in this movement are on the government dime (either work for the Government or receive some form of Welfare). It does not take a very big event to change this. If something happens where the Government can not handle the welfare, those receiving it will quickly change sides. Again, a historical normal which is easy to find.
The big question for most of us is how long they can procrastinate the collapse of the dollar, which has been looming for at least a decade. The US will run out of credit at some point, and when that happens the proverbial shit will hit the fan.
You are selectively reading or missed the "total net income". If you make 20-50K you pay 1%, if you make 50-75 you pay 2%. Nowhere does it state that you pay per portion, it states "total net income".
That is not a progressive tax, that is a scaling tax bracket where the higher your income the higher the rate of tax. Nowhere does it state that on your first 100K you pay one tax, on everything between 101K and 200K you pay another, etc... which is a progressive tax (and your first statement).
1 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net in-come exceeds $20,000 and does not exceed $50,000, and 2 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $50,000 and does not exceed $75,000, 3 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $75,000 and does not exceed $100,000, 4 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $100,000 and does not exceed $250,000, 5 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $250,000 and does not exceed $500,000, and 6 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the- total net income exceeds $500,000.
Too funny. I'm guessing you are just trolling now, because anyone claiming public access vs. restricted access is a "minor technicality" is either a liar or a fool.
The "progressive" tax was not part of US tax law until more recent times. Read tax laws from 1890-1970, it should take all of an hour to read them all, probably twice.
I did a hefty amount of writing on the subject many years ago, and I'll give you a hint. Historical Tax law and rate schedules are freely available from a.gov site and anything ending in.com should be scrutinized heavily (including Wiki). If I had the material handy I would be happy to provide the links, but alas you can find them easy enough by adding ".gov" to your search. Like this one.
The Tax code is public information, please go read it instead of presenting an absolute fairy tale and claiming that people disbelieving that fantasy are under a misconception as an appeal to emotion.
The founder of Capitalism was very clear that the failure of Mercantilism was due to unregulated monopolies which resulted in a 2 class system. The upper class could, and did, fix prices to maximize profits creating false scarcities and reducing wages in the labor pool. Capitalism was intended to be regulated to prevent a two class system, yet we have seen large reductions in our regulations over the last few decades. Hence, we are moving further toward yet another two class system which will end in predictable results if not checked.
I kind of agree with you, but don't agree that you have only two variables. Capitalism is supposed to have a third variable which can move toward either end of the scale. The mobile variable is supposed to increase productivity and allow class mobility. The stability factors are supposed to be the top and bottom ends, primarily due to what Socrates discussed with the Artisan and economics.
Paraphrasing Socrates pretty heavily here, but the logic will remain. Jobs paying too little result in a labor shortage and hopeless class of society. Jobs paying too much result in not just a lack of productivity by the wealthier class, but frees the same people to meddle in everyone else' affairs to gain until the point at which revolt is necessary to balance society again. The Government's job is to ensure that people are secure, which having no caps on wealth does not allow.
As we have seen deregulation occur, we have also seen wealth disparity change drastically in favor of those who already have wealth. Meanwhile the middle class has been reduced drastically and rates of poverty have increased dramatically in the US.
Before anyone claims "but that is unfair to rich people" Consider that up until Nixon, anyone making 1,000,000 a year in personal pay was paying 90% income tax (true since income tax was implemented). In 1968, making 100,000 a year was a very healthy wage, many times the average and very few making 1M/yr complained. Reagan reduced taxes further, so any wealthy person paying into the tax system paid a lesser rate than the average worker. Today, we have a guy admitting to make millions and pay 9% tax(Rupert Murdoch), compared to a person making 100K paying 30% tax. (It should go without saying that the income tax incentive was not just to prevent massive personal wealth, but to ensure that profits from companies went back into the company instead of a person's pocket).
Nixon promised that reducing taxes on the Rich would stimulate the economy, and Reagan claimed the same thing. Yet we have not seen any such stimulation and wealth disparity has moved in the exact opposite direction as promised.
I should not have to point out all of the particulars for how your analogy is wrong, you should be able to grasp these things on your own. Does the Bank holding a safety deposit box allow anyone access to the safety deposit boxes at all times without even a locked front door or any additional controls? Do they ship a copy of your safety deposit box (including the content) all over the world to make sure your stored items are redundant exposing your box directly in numerous locations instead of just one?
Your claim is, and was, preposterous and the analogy is wrong.
You can repeat this same lie as many times as you like, but I'd recommend that you read what a 'proof by assertion" is first. Repeating the lie does not, nor will it ever make, the truth. "Proof by assertion" is an informal fallacy.
So your "in plain sight" distraction is a lie, crafted to blame the victim.
It has nothing to do with distraction and I never used the word distraction. Again you are demonstrating that you fail at grasping the basic concepts of "just" and "justice". Each action must be measured to see if it was just. This does not make two actions the same, it demonstrates what we already know. One action can lead to another action.
Since you refuse to look at the distinction and continue to claim "blame the victim" without any qualifier there is no possible way for you to be rational or logical. In this case, the celebrities took actions which resulted in crime. Without them taking the action of uploading nude photos, a crime would not have occurred.
Two tasks are required to continue this conversation.
1. Demonstrate that the theft would have happened without the people posting their pictures on a public facing web site. 2. Prove to me that Socrates was wrong about his definition of Justice.
Without those two tasks being complete there is no point in further discussion. Reading and attempting to correct the same broken logic over and over has become rather dull.
Every month or so we get a new article on a new eugenics topic. Detecting "smart" embryos is a lie. Brain development may start in the embryonic phase, but this article from today demonstrates very clearly that development continues long after birth. It further indicates that childhood development has far greater impact on IQ than the embryonic phase. In other words, which scientist is lying?
Detecting a deficiency in an embryo is surely possible, but this is not the same as detecting high IQs which does not relate to "intelligence" which is subjective. As you point out, we don't even know what "high IQ" would really look like. Albert Einstein was not a great student or model person early on, Aristotle was known as a prick, and Archimedes by all accounts was completely frigging nuts.
My idea of a highly intelligent person is Socrates and I think Hawking is average. That is my opinion, and I surely hope that there are theoretical physicists that have a different opinion of who is smarter. The world needs different people to be smart at different things. What we don't need is people buying into this bullshit which ultimately leads to population control. We have enough morality to argue about for that already without a fabrication.
You can surely disagree with an opinion, but the fact that you requested that people censor an opinion is disturbing. I did not read your post after seeing that statement, and sincerely hope you are moderated negatively.
The purpose of the Slashdot moderation system is to encourage and reward "good" dialogue, not to censor opinions you don't like.
No, there is no relevant similarities between a public web service and a safety deposit box either. So you are still unable to argue with a rational line of thought.
Before attempting to provide yet another false analogy, you should consider what was proposed above. Namely, the entrapment analogy which is logically correct. The theft could not have occurred if the person had not stored their data in a public service.
If this correct analogy is followed to it's rational conclusion, you will find that there is nothing against a person's liberty involved. If you want to take a nude photo of yourself, you maintain the copies in your possession for private viewing. Then if someone steals these images, there is no question of your own actions which resulted in the theft.
Similarly, you can keep a 100 dollar bill sitting in a drawer in your house. Out of sight, it reduces the temptation for someone to break in and steal the 100 dollars. In plain sight, a hungry person needing to eat may be enticed into stealing the money to do so where they otherwise would have kept moving and asking for handouts. The theft is not made correct by this, but the temptation the person provided was the key to the crime.
The term "Just" does not flap around in the wind changing from here to there. "Just" and "Justice" are fixed, and our line of thinking needs to align accordingly. Each action needs to be measured uniquely to the definition of "Just". If you can not grasp that concept, then you are ill equipped to discuss justice. You can start by reading Plato's Republic Book I, and study this until you get it.
Learning to code is learning logic and critical thinking skills, which everyone needs. And it gives an understanding of computers that you can't get from a class where you just memorize terms like client, server, network, etc. And that barista may one day be sitting on a jury judging a technical case.
No, it's not and no it does not. Sorry if this hurts your ego, but the truth is not always painless.
If you had said "Learning to code helps to reinforce some aspects of critical thinking and logic" I would have been able to agree.
If you had said "Demonstrating that English and programming use similar language, such as array, variables, structures, etc.." I may have agreed with that also.
Simple programming is generally along the lines of very simple logic, which anyone with basic math could understand without much difficulty. Advanced programming on the other hand, requires abstract thought more akin to how an artist thinks (studies have shown this).
To the second part we can use the similar simple statements to make programming look familiar to someone. Advanced programming is not the same language as basic programming, and a barista or welder will get no benefit understanding advanced programming language and syntax. Even middle level programming, which would include things like regex and shared objects, have little use outside of programming.
Claiming that a juror needs to understand programming to sit on a jury is different how from claiming that a juror on a medical case needs to be a MD?
The victim is not to blame for the actions of the thief. Repeat it 1000 times, or until it sinks into that thick skull of yours.
Appeal to Assertion is not proof, it's a logical fallacy. The addition of an ad hominem simply proves that you have no rational debate.
except nobody stored them on a "public" server. They stored them in their own account on various online services' shared servers
Servers that are in Public view, in Public space, with Public addressing. Not only are you illogical and irrational, you are a liar. It is no surprise that you hide behind anonymity out of shame.
Do you understand what entrapment is? In large part, the problem here is with the "victim" creating the scenario making the crime possible very similar to entrapment. You are trying to simplify two distinct acts into a single act, and they are not. Entrapment is a distinct crime, different from the crime a recipient was trapped into.
This obviously does not imply that the person with the stolen property stole their own property as you are attempting to do. What it does state is that "if the celebrities had not taken deliberate actions, no crime would have been possible". Failing to argue that point is arguing that everyone should be able to take nude photographs and upload them to what ever site they want. Anyone looking at the photos is a criminal, and anyone uploading morally questionable content is perfectly just in their actions (which is anything but "just").
If that "smells like victim blaming" then you really should try to flush all the shit out of your nose. I'd recommend saline solution and perhaps some chlorinated water..
And actually, after re-reading GP I'm not with them. It's not a matter of giving 100% of the blame to the victim, it's a question of whether or not the victim did something to put themselves into a horrible position. That does not make the crime the victim's fault, it should however provide information for others on how to prevent similar crimes. I'm sure that the perverts will be happy to know that other potential victims will now do the same things, because you know.. it's not their fault if they do the same things.
Theft is not the same thing as physical assault, the end.
You are attempting to equate two different acts which are not the same. The motives for the two crimes don't match, nor do the actions, nor does the punishment if found guilty, nor is the damage to the victim the same. Theft is usually done for the perpetrator's financial gain. Note how when this breach occurred the person was not holding the photos out in order to rape victims, they were trying to "sell" the photos and gain notoriety which would increase their personal wealth.
We have different laws and punishments for different crimes very intentionally. Start with Book I in Plato's Republic and get a grasp on the concept of Justice. Work out from there.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really a conundrum, the problem is easily solved by making medical research not-for-profit.
Enforced monopolies are bad for society.
Nearly all governments, and most people, believe that patents encourage innovation by ensuring that innovators can profit from their investment of time and resources
Given your blanket generalization I'll retort "No, they don't". Numerous countries have been force into following the American model to compete (Europe), but that is not the same thing as "agreeing" as you so bluntly claimed. China has ignored US patents and Copyrights for decades, with no detriment to their trade. In fact the trade deficit between the US and China has consistently grown.
The US strong arming someone into enforcing US Patent laws is not the same thing as a country agreeing with the Laws. Perhaps you should consider why numerous countries are very hostile toward US companies, especially in the Medical and Agricultural sectors.
The fact that all of these meetings are being held in secrecy and away from public discourse is very telling. Like NAFTA, this is being touted as something great for free trade, but in fact is intended to benefit an oligarchical subset of society. Worse, that same subset has no consideration for the remainder of the citizens of the USA.
Simple, write your Reps and get them to denounce this garbage legislation. Vote them out of office if they don't denounce this bill and distance themselves. If you have 2 candidates that both want the bill, petition your own candidate on the ballot and lose the cronies.
Be warned too, that just like SOPA this is going to continually be pushed behind the scenes under new names and false pretenses.
The modding is wrong. If I had not already commented in the thread I would correct the censorship.
Why is the post correct? Because the problem isn't with Capitalism, it's with what we have today which is anything but what Adam Smith envisioned when describing Capitalism (read the damn books). What we have today is a gross bastardization that we are calling Capitalism, but in reality it's working closer to Mercantilism. The failures harming everyone except for the wealthy are the same failures we had under Mercantilism as well.
Milton Friedman wrote numerous books telling us where things were headed after the continual reduction in regulations, and nobody wanted to listen. Dr. Friedman was a pro Capitalist, about as pro capitalist and libertarian as you will find in a Nobel prize winning Economist.
More often than not, I'm happy to hold dialogue on Philosophy and try to teach people. In this particular case, I see no benefit for doing so. Your comment is a tangent which won't invalidate any of my points. Therefor, I lack the energy to even try. That said, I'll give you a few points of history to study which will put you on the path to my perspective.
1. Plato's The Republic. The whole thing, not just a single allegory or book. I don't expect you to get it at the first read, but rather grasp basic concepts and definitions. No offense is intended, I still learn new things every time I read the book. Frankly I have read at least 5 translations and each of those several times. I prefer "The Cambridge Text" version since it includes most of the historical references you need. As you suggested earlier, this requires a scholarly approach, not a glance or glimpse of the book. Main goals are to understand the definition of Justice, and "The Allegory of the Cave" completely. From Socrates's perspective it is the duty of the enlightened to free the masses from the cave, and that people will fight and to the death to remain in the cave.
Next, study history. Start with Athens and it's fall and follow that up through the US Revolution and find the root causes for the revolutions. While surely we can find numerous corollary explanations, a main theme is that the masses are oppressed to a point where there is no choice but to revolt. If you don't like US History, try the French Revolution from roughly the same time period. If you don't like Western history, try the Bolshevik Revolution where again the oppressed masses was the theme of the revolution (with obviously different results than a Republic). More recently, we have the Ukraine which revolted for the same reasons, though in fairness quite different extremes. Constant revolutions in Africa and the Middle East over the same theme again. The difference in stability between the US and Egypt for example, is that Egypt's revolutions were not successful in removing entrenched people who behave as an oppressive oligarchy where the US built in numerous protections (which continually been revoked over the last couple of decades).
You are correct regarding 1913. I am sure that progressive tax was no in place for long, and the system moved to a fixed scale a few years after inception. This is what answers the question for 1913.
I did not check every year, but by 1925 the progressive scale was removed. 1950 backs my statement that it was not progressive for long, but you can go year to year and figure out when it was removed past 1913. I also checked 1968, 1969, 1970, and 1971 and there are no progressive scales there either. The tax rate when Nixon took office was 90% if you made more than 1,000,000/yr without any progression (that you claimed existed).
Your statement that it was progressive is wrong for the majority, and in fact demonstrates that as the misconception. Even if you assume that every year prior to 1925 was using progressive, this makes a very small minority of years and a tax system that was disbanded long before Nixon, let alone Reagan..
British rule over the US is a prime example that every American should learn from serious scholarship, not the national myths presented in school textbooks
You start with a fair point, then move to a false assertion. While we could surely find discrepancies of opinion between Britain and the US on rationality that lead to the revolution, your claim that one side is a Myth is grossly biased.
The "momentum changing" which you refer to wasn't just public opinion swaying through peaceful debate, it was revolutionaries e.g. burning down the houses of that significant portion of the population that remained loyal to Britain.
From bias to an appeal to emotion, so we move down hill from what was a good first statement. Your generalization fails to account for people that were turning in "revolutionaries" for money, land, property, and promises. There were plenty of loyalists who were not really loyal, but saw the opportunity for personal gain at the expense of others.
When you speak with great anticipation of another revolution, one wonders if you respect rule of law and respect for your community at all, as long as a violent struggle is for a political outcome you like.
Ahh, the grand fallacy saved for last. You claim to know my mind so much better than I do, and you are absolutely wrong on all accounts. First, I don't "greatly anticipate" a revolt, in fact I encourage people in political offices to correct issues so that there is no need. At the same time I have studied, and do study, enough history to know that without changes a revolt of some type is inevitable.
Remember that the US was founded to protect individual liberty, not an oligarchy and/or "the great society". It is the latter path that leads to a societies downfall, not the former.
History shows that this mentality is not permanent. British rule over the US is a prime example that every US student should learn in public schools. People took a lot of crap from the Brits for a long time, and there was a point where momentum changed and we had a revolt.
The US is not very far from this today.
On the momentum behind the pro nanny state, most of the people in this movement are on the government dime (either work for the Government or receive some form of Welfare). It does not take a very big event to change this. If something happens where the Government can not handle the welfare, those receiving it will quickly change sides. Again, a historical normal which is easy to find.
The big question for most of us is how long they can procrastinate the collapse of the dollar, which has been looming for at least a decade. The US will run out of credit at some point, and when that happens the proverbial shit will hit the fan.
You are selectively reading or missed the "total net income". If you make 20-50K you pay 1%, if you make 50-75 you pay 2%. Nowhere does it state that you pay per portion, it states "total net income".
That is not a progressive tax, that is a scaling tax bracket where the higher your income the higher the rate of tax. Nowhere does it state that on your first 100K you pay one tax, on everything between 101K and 200K you pay another, etc... which is a progressive tax (and your first statement).
1 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net in-come exceeds $20,000 and does not exceed $50,000, and 2 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $50,000 and does not exceed $75,000, 3 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $75,000 and does not exceed $100,000, 4 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $100,000 and does not exceed $250,000, 5 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $250,000 and does not exceed $500,000, and 6 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the- total net income exceeds $500,000.
Too funny. I'm guessing you are just trolling now, because anyone claiming public access vs. restricted access is a "minor technicality" is either a liar or a fool.
The "progressive" tax was not part of US tax law until more recent times. Read tax laws from 1890-1970, it should take all of an hour to read them all, probably twice.
I did a hefty amount of writing on the subject many years ago, and I'll give you a hint. Historical Tax law and rate schedules are freely available from a .gov site and anything ending in .com should be scrutinized heavily (including Wiki). If I had the material handy I would be happy to provide the links, but alas you can find them easy enough by adding ".gov" to your search. Like this one.
The Tax code is public information, please go read it instead of presenting an absolute fairy tale and claiming that people disbelieving that fantasy are under a misconception as an appeal to emotion.
The founder of Capitalism was very clear that the failure of Mercantilism was due to unregulated monopolies which resulted in a 2 class system. The upper class could, and did, fix prices to maximize profits creating false scarcities and reducing wages in the labor pool. Capitalism was intended to be regulated to prevent a two class system, yet we have seen large reductions in our regulations over the last few decades. Hence, we are moving further toward yet another two class system which will end in predictable results if not checked.
I kind of agree with you, but don't agree that you have only two variables. Capitalism is supposed to have a third variable which can move toward either end of the scale. The mobile variable is supposed to increase productivity and allow class mobility. The stability factors are supposed to be the top and bottom ends, primarily due to what Socrates discussed with the Artisan and economics.
Paraphrasing Socrates pretty heavily here, but the logic will remain. Jobs paying too little result in a labor shortage and hopeless class of society. Jobs paying too much result in not just a lack of productivity by the wealthier class, but frees the same people to meddle in everyone else' affairs to gain until the point at which revolt is necessary to balance society again. The Government's job is to ensure that people are secure, which having no caps on wealth does not allow.
As we have seen deregulation occur, we have also seen wealth disparity change drastically in favor of those who already have wealth. Meanwhile the middle class has been reduced drastically and rates of poverty have increased dramatically in the US.
Before anyone claims "but that is unfair to rich people" Consider that up until Nixon, anyone making 1,000,000 a year in personal pay was paying 90% income tax (true since income tax was implemented). In 1968, making 100,000 a year was a very healthy wage, many times the average and very few making 1M/yr complained. Reagan reduced taxes further, so any wealthy person paying into the tax system paid a lesser rate than the average worker. Today, we have a guy admitting to make millions and pay 9% tax(Rupert Murdoch), compared to a person making 100K paying 30% tax. (It should go without saying that the income tax incentive was not just to prevent massive personal wealth, but to ensure that profits from companies went back into the company instead of a person's pocket).
Nixon promised that reducing taxes on the Rich would stimulate the economy, and Reagan claimed the same thing. Yet we have not seen any such stimulation and wealth disparity has moved in the exact opposite direction as promised.
I should not have to point out all of the particulars for how your analogy is wrong, you should be able to grasp these things on your own. Does the Bank holding a safety deposit box allow anyone access to the safety deposit boxes at all times without even a locked front door or any additional controls? Do they ship a copy of your safety deposit box (including the content) all over the world to make sure your stored items are redundant exposing your box directly in numerous locations instead of just one?
Your claim is, and was, preposterous and the analogy is wrong.
You can repeat this same lie as many times as you like, but I'd recommend that you read what a 'proof by assertion" is first. Repeating the lie does not, nor will it ever make, the truth. "Proof by assertion" is an informal fallacy.
So your "in plain sight" distraction is a lie, crafted to blame the victim.
It has nothing to do with distraction and I never used the word distraction. Again you are demonstrating that you fail at grasping the basic concepts of "just" and "justice". Each action must be measured to see if it was just. This does not make two actions the same, it demonstrates what we already know. One action can lead to another action.
Since you refuse to look at the distinction and continue to claim "blame the victim" without any qualifier there is no possible way for you to be rational or logical. In this case, the celebrities took actions which resulted in crime. Without them taking the action of uploading nude photos, a crime would not have occurred.
Two tasks are required to continue this conversation.
1. Demonstrate that the theft would have happened without the people posting their pictures on a public facing web site.
2. Prove to me that Socrates was wrong about his definition of Justice.
Without those two tasks being complete there is no point in further discussion. Reading and attempting to correct the same broken logic over and over has become rather dull.
Every month or so we get a new article on a new eugenics topic. Detecting "smart" embryos is a lie. Brain development may start in the embryonic phase, but this article from today demonstrates very clearly that development continues long after birth. It further indicates that childhood development has far greater impact on IQ than the embryonic phase. In other words, which scientist is lying?
Detecting a deficiency in an embryo is surely possible, but this is not the same as detecting high IQs which does not relate to "intelligence" which is subjective. As you point out, we don't even know what "high IQ" would really look like. Albert Einstein was not a great student or model person early on, Aristotle was known as a prick, and Archimedes by all accounts was completely frigging nuts.
My idea of a highly intelligent person is Socrates and I think Hawking is average. That is my opinion, and I surely hope that there are theoretical physicists that have a different opinion of who is smarter. The world needs different people to be smart at different things. What we don't need is people buying into this bullshit which ultimately leads to population control. We have enough morality to argue about for that already without a fabrication.
You can surely disagree with an opinion, but the fact that you requested that people censor an opinion is disturbing. I did not read your post after seeing that statement, and sincerely hope you are moderated negatively.
The purpose of the Slashdot moderation system is to encourage and reward "good" dialogue, not to censor opinions you don't like.
No, there is no relevant similarities between a public web service and a safety deposit box either. So you are still unable to argue with a rational line of thought.
Before attempting to provide yet another false analogy, you should consider what was proposed above. Namely, the entrapment analogy which is logically correct. The theft could not have occurred if the person had not stored their data in a public service.
If this correct analogy is followed to it's rational conclusion, you will find that there is nothing against a person's liberty involved. If you want to take a nude photo of yourself, you maintain the copies in your possession for private viewing. Then if someone steals these images, there is no question of your own actions which resulted in the theft.
Similarly, you can keep a 100 dollar bill sitting in a drawer in your house. Out of sight, it reduces the temptation for someone to break in and steal the 100 dollars. In plain sight, a hungry person needing to eat may be enticed into stealing the money to do so where they otherwise would have kept moving and asking for handouts. The theft is not made correct by this, but the temptation the person provided was the key to the crime.
The term "Just" does not flap around in the wind changing from here to there. "Just" and "Justice" are fixed, and our line of thinking needs to align accordingly. Each action needs to be measured uniquely to the definition of "Just". If you can not grasp that concept, then you are ill equipped to discuss justice. You can start by reading Plato's Republic Book I, and study this until you get it.
Purchasing a TV that you keep inside your locked house is the same thing as purchasing a TV and leaving it on the sidewalk then?
Apparently, the only way to defend your position is to maintain a continual stream of illogical fallacies.
Learning to code is learning logic and critical thinking skills, which everyone needs. And it gives an understanding of computers that you can't get from a class where you just memorize terms like client, server, network, etc. And that barista may one day be sitting on a jury judging a technical case.
No, it's not and no it does not. Sorry if this hurts your ego, but the truth is not always painless.
If you had said "Learning to code helps to reinforce some aspects of critical thinking and logic" I would have been able to agree.
If you had said "Demonstrating that English and programming use similar language, such as array, variables, structures, etc.." I may have agreed with that also.
Simple programming is generally along the lines of very simple logic, which anyone with basic math could understand without much difficulty. Advanced programming on the other hand, requires abstract thought more akin to how an artist thinks (studies have shown this).
To the second part we can use the similar simple statements to make programming look familiar to someone. Advanced programming is not the same language as basic programming, and a barista or welder will get no benefit understanding advanced programming language and syntax. Even middle level programming, which would include things like regex and shared objects, have little use outside of programming.
Claiming that a juror needs to understand programming to sit on a jury is different how from claiming that a juror on a medical case needs to be a MD?
The victim is not to blame for the actions of the thief. Repeat it 1000 times, or until it sinks into that thick skull of yours.
Appeal to Assertion is not proof, it's a logical fallacy. The addition of an ad hominem simply proves that you have no rational debate.
except nobody stored them on a "public" server. They stored them in their own account on various online services' shared servers
Servers that are in Public view, in Public space, with Public addressing. Not only are you illogical and irrational, you are a liar. It is no surprise that you hide behind anonymity out of shame.
Do you understand what entrapment is? In large part, the problem here is with the "victim" creating the scenario making the crime possible very similar to entrapment. You are trying to simplify two distinct acts into a single act, and they are not. Entrapment is a distinct crime, different from the crime a recipient was trapped into.
This obviously does not imply that the person with the stolen property stole their own property as you are attempting to do. What it does state is that "if the celebrities had not taken deliberate actions, no crime would have been possible". Failing to argue that point is arguing that everyone should be able to take nude photographs and upload them to what ever site they want. Anyone looking at the photos is a criminal, and anyone uploading morally questionable content is perfectly just in their actions (which is anything but "just").
If that "smells like victim blaming" then you really should try to flush all the shit out of your nose. I'd recommend saline solution and perhaps some chlorinated water..
And actually, after re-reading GP I'm not with them. It's not a matter of giving 100% of the blame to the victim, it's a question of whether or not the victim did something to put themselves into a horrible position. That does not make the crime the victim's fault, it should however provide information for others on how to prevent similar crimes. I'm sure that the perverts will be happy to know that other potential victims will now do the same things, because you know.. it's not their fault if they do the same things.
Theft is not the same thing as physical assault, the end.
You are attempting to equate two different acts which are not the same. The motives for the two crimes don't match, nor do the actions, nor does the punishment if found guilty, nor is the damage to the victim the same. Theft is usually done for the perpetrator's financial gain. Note how when this breach occurred the person was not holding the photos out in order to rape victims, they were trying to "sell" the photos and gain notoriety which would increase their personal wealth.
We have different laws and punishments for different crimes very intentionally. Start with Book I in Plato's Republic and get a grasp on the concept of Justice. Work out from there.
GP's signature