I'm not sure it's the broken window fallacy at all. The broken window fallacy requires that value be destroyed from the system in order to 'generate' value (which tends to lead to a total loss of value).
However, in the case of this taxation, what value is being destroyed?
They seem to be quite effective for taking over ships. What makes you think they can't be used to prevent such action? It worked historically.
I didn't say they couldn't be used, I said I was dubious of the efficacy. both warships and historical vessels were in very different situations than modern, very large bulk cargo carriers.
Warships not only have active surface search combat radar and a full crew of soldiers manning both weapons and sensors on a consistent basis, but they have relatively large crews for their size.
Historical vessels generally did not have to contend with very small vessels in the open sea; sail-powered vessels were visible at a greater distance because they had much larger and higher visible surfaces; and sail-powered ships were very much slower than modern ships. Moreover, smaller ships were not terribly faster than larger ships. (This is of course assuming you are comparing modern pirates in small-craft to historical pirates in small-craft; historically, most pirates were in much larger craft, there were fewer of them, and they cost more to operate, which is why they could be relatively easily stopped by naval units.)
None of those facts apply to modern piracy.
And yet our guys managed to take back their ship with fists. Who said they have to 'stand watch' anyway? If you see the pirates coming you break out the guns and prepare to resist. As it stands now all they can do is get on the radio and pray the Navy gets there before they get boarded. Not a situation I'd want to be in.....
Because if you don't stand watch, how, exactly, do you plan to see the pirates coming?
One other thing I forgot to mention- no ports will allow your ship transit if it happens to be carrying a Phalanx. I know the Bosporus also restricts the transit of armed ships; I'm not sure if the same is true of the Suez Canal.
As for the utility of defensive firearms, I am dubious of the efficacy. Merchant marine ships do not have large crews and do not have sufficient crew members to have them stand watch for pirates and shoot at them while doing nothing else all day.
At the cost of some $15 million dollars (just for the Phalanx CIWS!) per ship, of which there are 348 US-flagged.
That's a mere 5.22 billion dollars. Not to mention the cost of a Phalanx CIWS operator (you'll need at least three so one's on duty at all times. So make that some 1100 crew as well, because we'll need a couple of spares. Assuming they're each making say $30,000 per year, that's only $33 million per year. Plus the cost of rounds for the Phalanx, training... large ships will need more than one gun, anyway, to cover their blind-spots and the chances of the cargo ships being able to be in a position use them is likely relatively rare anyway.
As a result, you're spending $5.22 billion at least in fixed costs, at least $35 million per year in operating costs, and what you have to show for it... will be... what? Exactly? Perhaps a half-dozen piracy incidents averted?
Not really. It's a very common legal tactic. "My opponent is full of shit! But just in case you don't think so, here's another fifty reasons why he's also wrong!" (I hate this tactic, by the way. I think, like you do, that it's essentially absurd. However, all lawyers I know use it because it is basically the most successful tactic, as it allows you to make multiple submissions on issues even if you don't think they're likely to be ruled on- you don't want to be caught having NOT MADE any submissions at all.)
Agree so much- although I don't code, but as I basically write for a living, the aggravation of having a wonderful series of words, a phrase, a page, a paragraph, anything come together perfectly and then having this burning urge to write it down- but being unable to- and then finally getting to a computer and having forgotten half of it and no desire to figure it out is enormously frustrating.
It was for that reason I shifted from a 15.4" notebook to a 12.1" tablet, actually, in the hopes that it would make my writing more convenient. Has worked out so far, but not as well as I'd like.
I think you are misreading my comment- I am not suggesting that documents must be registered to be covered under copyright, but that they must be registered and maintained to avoid being considered orphans.
I somehow think you are not entirely tracking on my argument, but I can't exactly put a finger on where.
1) I don't think it's unreasonable to deal with notifications for large numbers of documents, with the Internet and computers. Just submit a list of all your copyright numbers.
2)The CC license is a bastardization anyway. If you're not willing to continue to expend effort for things to remain under CC license (for which you presumably have a reason) then let them fall under orphaned works. Orphaned works does not REMOVE copyright protection, after all.
3)Lack of a copyright identifier does not make something public domain. Nor is it necessary. Similarly, if someone misuses your copyrighted material, you can order them to take it down. Their lack of due diligence is not your concern- they are responsible for their breach.
4) Harmonizing copyrights world-wide is always a problem. That's why we have WIPO.
5) How does this in any way affect your right to publish things under a pseudonym? Even under the prior system, you could not sue for enforcement without revealing your actual name, which meant the copyright on those documents was very weak indeed.
The issue seems fairly obvious to solve, to me: You, as the copyright holder, must submit a copy of the document to the Library of Congress for storage in high-resolution (or whatever the content equivalent is), and must send them a registered letter or similar once a year for your work to be declared not orphaned.
If they don't receive a letter two years in a row, it becomes orphaned, but if you keep sending in letters, your copyright will continue until it expires.
A due-diligence search would therefore simply involve searching the LOC.
I am not the GP. But my response to you would be my response to any solicitor who might be called upon to represent a client whose case he does not support.
As a physician, your purpose was to take care of your client as best you can. Your client is not the fetus, it's the mother. You are obligated to do everything within your power to best take care of the client.
If you are unwilling, morally, to agree to that, then you should not be a doctor.
The question I suppose your asking is whether the ends justify the means. And in this case, what are the ends? Wikileaks 'ends' that it is supposedly justifying with this lack of transparency is what? Nothing. Embarrassment, perhaps. What immensely important 'end' has Wikileaks achieved at the expense of this hypocrisy?
I don't think that argument makes any sense. Either you think that transparency is a good thing, in which case not behaving transparently is blatantly hypocritical, or you really think that transparency is only a good thing for OTHER people.
And in that case, you really have no moral authority.
Google: 1) Is also overloaded with advertising 2) Often doesn't find things you are looking for 3) Is notorious for finding crap you aren't looking for 4) Covers a very small domain
Pretty much the only thing it has going for it is simplicity of interface and relative speed.
Then you must be limiting your searches to only things that Google covers. Trust me, there is an enormous amount of material that Google doesn't archive, and if I can't find it on Google, chances are I'll need to find somewhere else that does archive it. If you believe that it is you who is wrong, rather than Google, you exclude an enormous amount of existing material.
An excellent example of this is message boards, in fact. Try searching for your historical slashdot posts- Google will not find all of them. It tends to pick up a random selection of them at any one time.
If wikileaks is such a fan of transparency, I urge them to post their own contributors IP addresses, full names, and addresses; as well as everyone who provides them with any services or money or other support.
A lopsided fight can in fact be a massacre. It is routinely used in cases where defenders in fixed positions are attacked by massed, human waves of attackers; to describe units destroyed under massive artillery bombardment; to describe units that are massively outnumbered being encircled and destroyed; etc.
All a massacre requires is that one side stand no chance against the other and be slaughtered en masse.
Guerrilla warfare will not by definition cause lots of collateral damage. By definition it simply requires smaller, more mobile forces engaging a larger, more fixed force.
In contrast, engaging guerrilla forces does not require collateral damage at all. It is neither inherent nor implicit in the definition.
I don't really like Google's actions for a variety of reasons, but this isn't one of them. I was, as you say, merely responding to the parent's argument, which was ridiculous.
I also agree that 'human rights' or 'civil rights' are irrelevant here.
I would argue the standard that should be used is the useful progression of the arts and sciences definition. (which option best suits the useful progression of the arts and sciences?) And I don't necessarily know that that falls in favor of google, but I admit I haven't thought about it in depth.
That depends on what the argument is you're attempting to extend by analogy. The original comment I responded to said that the rights of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Under that argument, my analogy is valid.
Hence, as we do not agree that what is written in my analogy is valid, the original comment's argument, we agree, is invalid.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure it's the broken window fallacy at all. The broken window fallacy requires that value be destroyed from the system in order to 'generate' value (which tends to lead to a total loss of value).
However, in the case of this taxation, what value is being destroyed?
I didn't say they couldn't be used, I said I was dubious of the efficacy. both warships and historical vessels were in very different situations than modern, very large bulk cargo carriers.
Warships not only have active surface search combat radar and a full crew of soldiers manning both weapons and sensors on a consistent basis, but they have relatively large crews for their size.
Historical vessels generally did not have to contend with very small vessels in the open sea; sail-powered vessels were visible at a greater distance because they had much larger and higher visible surfaces; and sail-powered ships were very much slower than modern ships. Moreover, smaller ships were not terribly faster than larger ships. (This is of course assuming you are comparing modern pirates in small-craft to historical pirates in small-craft; historically, most pirates were in much larger craft, there were fewer of them, and they cost more to operate, which is why they could be relatively easily stopped by naval units.)
None of those facts apply to modern piracy.
Because if you don't stand watch, how, exactly, do you plan to see the pirates coming?
One other thing I forgot to mention- no ports will allow your ship transit if it happens to be carrying a Phalanx. I know the Bosporus also restricts the transit of armed ships; I'm not sure if the same is true of the Suez Canal.
As for the utility of defensive firearms, I am dubious of the efficacy. Merchant marine ships do not have large crews and do not have sufficient crew members to have them stand watch for pirates and shoot at them while doing nothing else all day.
At the cost of some $15 million dollars (just for the Phalanx CIWS!) per ship, of which there are 348 US-flagged.
That's a mere 5.22 billion dollars. Not to mention the cost of a Phalanx CIWS operator (you'll need at least three so one's on duty at all times. So make that some 1100 crew as well, because we'll need a couple of spares. Assuming they're each making say $30,000 per year, that's only $33 million per year. Plus the cost of rounds for the Phalanx, training... large ships will need more than one gun, anyway, to cover their blind-spots and the chances of the cargo ships being able to be in a position use them is likely relatively rare anyway.
As a result, you're spending $5.22 billion at least in fixed costs, at least $35 million per year in operating costs, and what you have to show for it... will be... what? Exactly? Perhaps a half-dozen piracy incidents averted?
Not really. It's a very common legal tactic. "My opponent is full of shit! But just in case you don't think so, here's another fifty reasons why he's also wrong!"
(I hate this tactic, by the way. I think, like you do, that it's essentially absurd. However, all lawyers I know use it because it is basically the most successful tactic, as it allows you to make multiple submissions on issues even if you don't think they're likely to be ruled on- you don't want to be caught having NOT MADE any submissions at all.)
Agree so much- although I don't code, but as I basically write for a living, the aggravation of having a wonderful series of words, a phrase, a page, a paragraph, anything come together perfectly and then having this burning urge to write it down- but being unable to- and then finally getting to a computer and having forgotten half of it and no desire to figure it out is enormously frustrating.
It was for that reason I shifted from a 15.4" notebook to a 12.1" tablet, actually, in the hopes that it would make my writing more convenient. Has worked out so far, but not as well as I'd like.
I think you are misreading my comment- I am not suggesting that documents must be registered to be covered under copyright, but that they must be registered and maintained to avoid being considered orphans.
I somehow think you are not entirely tracking on my argument, but I can't exactly put a finger on where.
1) I don't think it's unreasonable to deal with notifications for large numbers of documents, with the Internet and computers. Just submit a list of all your copyright numbers.
2)The CC license is a bastardization anyway. If you're not willing to continue to expend effort for things to remain under CC license (for which you presumably have a reason) then let them fall under orphaned works. Orphaned works does not REMOVE copyright protection, after all.
3)Lack of a copyright identifier does not make something public domain. Nor is it necessary. Similarly, if someone misuses your copyrighted material, you can order them to take it down. Their lack of due diligence is not your concern- they are responsible for their breach.
4) Harmonizing copyrights world-wide is always a problem. That's why we have WIPO.
5) How does this in any way affect your right to publish things under a pseudonym? Even under the prior system, you could not sue for enforcement without revealing your actual name, which meant the copyright on those documents was very weak indeed.
The issue seems fairly obvious to solve, to me: You, as the copyright holder, must submit a copy of the document to the Library of Congress for storage in high-resolution (or whatever the content equivalent is), and must send them a registered letter or similar once a year for your work to be declared not orphaned.
If they don't receive a letter two years in a row, it becomes orphaned, but if you keep sending in letters, your copyright will continue until it expires.
A due-diligence search would therefore simply involve searching the LOC.
I am not the GP. But my response to you would be my response to any solicitor who might be called upon to represent a client whose case he does not support.
As a physician, your purpose was to take care of your client as best you can. Your client is not the fetus, it's the mother. You are obligated to do everything within your power to best take care of the client.
If you are unwilling, morally, to agree to that, then you should not be a doctor.
The question I suppose your asking is whether the ends justify the means. And in this case, what are the ends? Wikileaks 'ends' that it is supposedly justifying with this lack of transparency is what? Nothing. Embarrassment, perhaps. What immensely important 'end' has Wikileaks achieved at the expense of this hypocrisy?
I don't think that argument makes any sense. Either you think that transparency is a good thing, in which case not behaving transparently is blatantly hypocritical, or you really think that transparency is only a good thing for OTHER people.
And in that case, you really have no moral authority.
You don't think they have? I think the leaking of generally confidential information perfectly warrants scrutiny of their affairs.
Perhaps that's a problem, hmm?
Hypocrites.
Google:
1) Is also overloaded with advertising
2) Often doesn't find things you are looking for
3) Is notorious for finding crap you aren't looking for
4) Covers a very small domain
Pretty much the only thing it has going for it is simplicity of interface and relative speed.
Then you must be limiting your searches to only things that Google covers. Trust me, there is an enormous amount of material that Google doesn't archive, and if I can't find it on Google, chances are I'll need to find somewhere else that does archive it. If you believe that it is you who is wrong, rather than Google, you exclude an enormous amount of existing material.
An excellent example of this is message boards, in fact. Try searching for your historical slashdot posts- Google will not find all of them. It tends to pick up a random selection of them at any one time.
If wikileaks is such a fan of transparency, I urge them to post their own contributors IP addresses, full names, and addresses; as well as everyone who provides them with any services or money or other support.
That really depends on what one happens to be searching for. In a lot of cases, yes, it means "I need to try another search engine".
No, it should not. It should be made public domain, like all other government-created materials (at least in the US).
Why is there this inane fixation on Open Source?
A lopsided fight can in fact be a massacre. It is routinely used in cases where defenders in fixed positions are attacked by massed, human waves of attackers; to describe units destroyed under massive artillery bombardment; to describe units that are massively outnumbered being encircled and destroyed; etc.
All a massacre requires is that one side stand no chance against the other and be slaughtered en masse.
Guerrilla warfare will not by definition cause lots of collateral damage. By definition it simply requires smaller, more mobile forces engaging a larger, more fixed force.
In contrast, engaging guerrilla forces does not require collateral damage at all. It is neither inherent nor implicit in the definition.
What exactly is your point? That the use of large-scale weapons against civilian populations will result in civilian casualties?
Can you make a point that isn't tautological?
I don't really like Google's actions for a variety of reasons, but this isn't one of them. I was, as you say, merely responding to the parent's argument, which was ridiculous.
I also agree that 'human rights' or 'civil rights' are irrelevant here.
I would argue the standard that should be used is the useful progression of the arts and sciences definition. (which option best suits the useful progression of the arts and sciences?) And I don't necessarily know that that falls in favor of google, but I admit I haven't thought about it in depth.
That depends on what the argument is you're attempting to extend by analogy. The original comment I responded to said that the rights of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Under that argument, my analogy is valid.
Hence, as we do not agree that what is written in my analogy is valid, the original comment's argument, we agree, is invalid.
The argument is very much that simply because you're fighting a war doesn't make it not a massacre.
In fact, I would argue that the greater the technological disparity between the two parties, the more likely the battle is to be a massacre.
From that same source:
"To kill in considerable numbers where much resistance can not be made..."