In reference to your assertion of cranial-rectal immersion, the Republicants (spelling error mine) happened to have the power, and thus the ability to be ruthless with it, which they undeniably did. As for the Democrats, it's difficult to abuse power that you don't have. But now that the Democrats have the power, they are alreadymoving to abuse it.
In other words, don't be a shill for a particular party. They both suck and neither cares about your rights.
Who said anything about anonymity? What we're talking about is the fact that you would have to "register" with the gubbmint when stating a political opinion under the threat of jail time or hefty fines. I don't give a crap if it's for pay or not, it's still curtailing of free speech rights.
If you're comfortable with that, that's your business, but I'm not. I guess that I don't that much confidence in the gov't not to abuse their power. To me, this and the "Fairness" Doctrine are just ways of the Man trying to shut somebody down.
--
The "Fairness" Doctrine has as much to do with fairness as the "Patriot" Act has to do with patriotism.
In the future, please submit posts in the proper SLA (Slashdot Language Association) form. See example below:
Key to silencing political opposition.
Step 1. Find (or foster) a nice divisive issue (abortion, homosexuality, gun ownership).
Step 2. Get opposition arguing vehemently over this and quietly agree on all major issues (corporate taxation, media control, privacy rights).
Step 3. Whenever major issue comes up, mention minor divisive issue.
Step 4. Watch political opposition fall apart.
Step 5. Profit!!
...he says, as he lists both Democrats AND Republicans.
Harry Reid-D
Robt Bennett-R
Sherrodd Brown-D
Maria Cantwell-D
Susan Collins-R
Dick Durbin-D
Diane Feinstein-D
Frank Lautenberg-D
Patrick Leahy-D
Joe Lieberman-D
Trent Lott-R
Mitch McConnell-R
Robert Menendez-D
Barbara Mikulski-D
Ken Salazar-D
Chuck Schumer-D
Debbie Stabenow-D
Jim Webb-D
At D=14 R=4, it could hardly be considered broadly bipartisan. But, to your point, Republicans are just as bad.
Huh. I thought it was only the Republicans who were after our 1st Amendment rights. But here are the Democrats assaulting our freedoms again by trying to control who says what.
<sarcasm>Oh, never mind, they just want to make sure we have "our papers in order" before we can criticize them.</sarcasm> And we thought that they would be for our rights. But it looks like they are just interested in using the power to stay in power.
It's time to lose the naivte and realize that politicians (whether Republicans or Democrats) are only interested in one thing--getting re-elected.
The point was, your post begged the questions: "is the media controlled by few people, or many?" and "compared to what?"
I didn't miss your point; I understood it completely. But, there is no necessity that I am either a) incorrect about media diversity, or b) the president of a major broadcast network. I could be neither.
Are you sure that he's libertarian? Libertarian generally means that one is for the least amount of government intrusion into the lives and property of citizens.
While he's for getting the government out of some things, like the so-called "War on Drugs," the Patriot Act, and abortion, he's also very socialist on many issues, such as:
-health care
-education
-Social Security
-farming
-worker's rights
The way I see it, the "Fairness" Doctrine is a way for the people who currently have their views spoon-fed to them by corporate hacks to get their spoon-feeding from government hacks.
I was going to sit out this flamewar, but I just have to get involved.
Despite quite a bit of disagreement with him, I have a fair amount of respect for Kucinich, if for no other reason than he at least *seems* to be consistent in what he says and does. And like him, I am worried that the media is now in the hands of so few people, but who would police this "fairness?
<sarcasm>Surely politicians are bought and sold by corporate interests. Surely we can trust committees of appointees to handle things in a "present controversial issues in an honest, equal, and balanced manner."</sarcasm>
It seems like everyone in the political scene thinks that there is a media bias one way or another, and, for all I know, there probably is but I don't see it being made better by putting the politicians in charge of it.
FTA: While I have the utmost respect for Mr Mossberg, I can't help but feel that the words in the second paragraph contradict and negate the words of the first. To my mind, a logical layout of commands and functions would obviate the need to learn how to find those commands and functions.
While I have the utmost respect for Mr. Beer, I can't help but feel that he has laid out an impossibly high standard for software menus. Is it even possible to, as he puts it, "obviate the need to learn how to find those commands and functions?"
Take what I said with a grain of salt, I'm bitter 'cause wish I had a kewl last name like his. Cue the "free-as-in-beer jokes." In 3, 2, 1...
Hah...my opinion is that the political system is corrupted by money and association. Here's a little something about your new Speaker of the House.
Of course, it's hard to believe that the Republicans have the nerve to bitch about it (put me in mind of something about logs and specks or maybe pots and kettle), but they do.
Regarding the heat issue, if you're based as an IT specialist in an industrial environment, then you have to liase with the site engineers for this kind of task. It's outside of your experience/training/knowledge, so don't succumb to vanity and assume that you have the intelligence to pull through it unaided. Such a place will already have other heat and interference-sensitive equipment which has been installed by engineers on-site, and they'll be able to do the same for your equipment.
Having dealt with more than a few extreme networks environments, I agree wholeheartedly with this. There are plenty of great DIY projects--this IS NOT one of them. DO NOT take technical advice from some anonymous source on slashdot, they are not the one who is going to get fired when it all comes crashing down. Pay the money for an expert with credentials, a history of proven results, follow-up on his/her references and get a guarantee. Otherwise, you're just asking to be canned.
Well, I was going to make a snide remark about how they spent their honeymoon, but I really like Picasa, so I refrained.
However, I remember this happening the last time I stayed in a hotel (a Hilton Garden). At least I kept getting redirected. I am more than a little miffed that hotels are charging me *and* spying on me.
Right. I just did a data transfer onto a new Duo Core eMachines for a customer. It was loaded with "craplets." Wild Tangent, (essentially spyware), five different AOL entries, a useless 90-day trial of McAfee, a useless 60-day trial of Office, The Big Fix (totally redundant--manages Windows Updates), a 30-day trial of Napster and other useless and memory-hogging crap.
I'm used to starting with a clean hard drive and installing an OEM Windows, so I was horrified by how many apps were running in the system tray the first time it booted. And, just like you said, it didn't come with a proper install CD.
Secondly, even in your hypothetical example, 55 laws were passed, and 30 repealed. Your argument would have been perfect, except that it fails second grade math, and the fact that it requires that there are no old laws around. This is obviously not the case.
Check *your* math or reread my post. 30 is more than half of 55.
In the end, however, I was not talking about how easy or hard it is to repeal restrictive laws. In practice that does not matter. What matters is how likely is it that the restrictive law gets repealed vs. a more restrictive law passed. Simply considering the number of laws on the books, it is clear that passing new laws is more likely than repealing old ones.
Is it really so clear? Does the number of laws on the books necessarily indicate that other laws are unlikely to be repealed? I think not. Hypothetical example:
In 1999, the Sovereign State of Udderly is formed. In that year the legislative body enacts ten laws. In 2000, all of those laws are repealed. In 2001, the legislative body enacts twenty laws. In 2002, all of those laws are repealed. In 2003, the legislature enacts twenty-five laws.
So, in 2003, there are twenty-five laws in force, which is more than at any other time in the history of Udderly. However, a total of thirty laws have been repealed. So, given the past history of laws in Udderly, we could say that a law is *more likely* to be repealed than not.
In addition is seems that we might be in danger of incongruity. Just because Congress makes a new law, does not mean that this law has anything to do with the restricting of historical freedoms and therefore doesn't really impact the matter in question.
Here is some evidence to back that up. And those are just the funny ones.
The fact that there are a some laws left over from bygone eras does not in any sense support the assertion that restrictive laws are unlikely to be repealed. Anecdotes give no indication of the probability of something occurring or not occurring. If I said that I am very likely to win the lottery on one $1 bet and gave you a link to a website about a former lottery winner, would you accept that as supporting my assertion?
Now I think we are getting close to the heart of our differences. You seem to care more that your logic is correct than that your conclusions are correct. I am the opposite.
Once again, you have made an assertion that is unsupported in any way. Or is your evidence that I simply disagree with you, so therefore I must not be as rigorous in the pursuit of "correct conclusions?"
This is not a logical fallacy - it is human nature. Once you start down the slope it is easier to move farther down than it is to climb back up - and you do not want to end up at the bottom! The only reason what you said wasn't totally offtopic was the fact that the OP did what most people do when they are trying to convince others - he overstated his case. 'Very well may' is not as nice sounding as 'must surely be', and so he chose the latter.
In short, the logical fallacy of the 'slippery slope' is a strawman - it disproves something other than the original (correctly worded) argument.
How interesting that you choose to try to invalidate one logical fallacy with another. However, I will take your objections at face value and assume that you're not just cherry-picking the logical rules that benefit your argument.
It is true that there are very limited instances where a "slippery slope" is not a logical fallacy, but these limited instances involve an independent verifiable factor that connects the antecedent (in this case that one needs an ID to fly on a plane) inevitably to an outcome (in this case that IDs might/will be required at the state line). There is no factor like that here and this is why the slippery slope is simple sophistry in this example. That the OP might have said "might" instead of "will" does not make a difference in terms of logic--it is still an unsupported assertion that assumes an unproven mechanism of inevitability or likelihood.
This is the problem with a slippery slope argument (and why it is a logical fallacy): the analogy of an actual physical "slippery slope" is flawed. Despite your use of the same metaphorical mechanism (in bold), there is no *actual* uphill or downhill nor any *actual* slipperiness. In this case especially, since it is theoretically just as easy to repeal a law as to enact a new one that goes further in the same direction, and since neither you nor the OP has presented any evidence to the contrary. And no, simply claiming that it's "human nature" does not qualify. It *is* a good device to communicate an idea, and it may even turn out to be correct, but it has no more place in classical logic than anecdotal evidence or appeal to emotion.
Please understand that I'm not necessarily in favor of the current situation, but to say that it's likely that one will need to show their ID at the state line is either pretty paranoid or sensationalism. We all certainly have a responsibility to guard our liberties but my opinion is that this sort fear-mongering is counter-productive.
As an aside, it's not like continuing curtailment is inevitable or that it's never happened before. The curtailment of individual liberties during WWII was quite draconian and yet we regained the vast majority of these liberties at the end of the war.
I'm truly confused; are you:
1. saying that "slippery slope" is not a logical fallacy
2. claiming that what the OP said does not apply to the logical fallacy known as slippery slope
3. saying something else entirely
If you are saying #1, you don't have a problem with my statement, but with the accepted rules of logic. If you are saying #2, you must be joking--that is a classic example of slippery slope (did you read the example in the provided link?). If #3, please explain, I don't understand.
for how much longer? How soon before being required to show ID when crossing a State Line? How soon before being required to show ID when checking into Hotels/Motels? How soon before being required to check in with the local police station when you intend to stay somewhere more than a few hours? How soon before having to get written permission before you can travel more than so many miles from your nominated place of residence?
Slippery slope people... they'll nibble away at your "freedom" by adding little "reasonable seeming" requirements here and there... all in the name of protecting you from terrorism/saving the children from pedophiles/whatever the current "bete noir" is...
It's interesting that that you mentioned the "slippery slope," since this is a well-known logical fallacy.
1. Buy Sealand on credit, you can get a loan anywhere these days.
2. Apply for your own TLD.
3. Open up for a new domain rush, demand ridicilous prices for certain domains
4. Release the loan using the income from domain sales.
5. You own Sealand, you are king.
Slashdot Mirror
In reference to your assertion of cranial-rectal immersion, the Republicants (spelling error mine) happened to have the power, and thus the ability to be ruthless with it, which they undeniably did. As for the Democrats, it's difficult to abuse power that you don't have. But now that the Democrats have the power, they are already moving to abuse it.
In other words, don't be a shill for a particular party. They both suck and neither cares about your rights.
Who said anything about anonymity? What we're talking about is the fact that you would have to "register" with the gubbmint when stating a political opinion under the threat of jail time or hefty fines. I don't give a crap if it's for pay or not, it's still curtailing of free speech rights.
If you're comfortable with that, that's your business, but I'm not. I guess that I don't that much confidence in the gov't not to abuse their power. To me, this and the "Fairness" Doctrine are just ways of the Man trying to shut somebody down.
--
The "Fairness" Doctrine has as much to do with fairness as the "Patriot" Act has to do with patriotism.
In the future, please submit posts in the proper SLA (Slashdot Language Association) form. See example below:
Key to silencing political opposition.
Step 1. Find (or foster) a nice divisive issue (abortion, homosexuality, gun ownership).
Step 2. Get opposition arguing vehemently over this and quietly agree on all major issues (corporate taxation, media control, privacy rights).
Step 3. Whenever major issue comes up, mention minor divisive issue.
Step 4. Watch political opposition fall apart.
Step 5. Profit!!
...he says, as he lists both Democrats AND Republicans.
Harry Reid-D
Robt Bennett-R
Sherrodd Brown-D
Maria Cantwell-D
Susan Collins-R
Dick Durbin-D
Diane Feinstein-D
Frank Lautenberg-D
Patrick Leahy-D
Joe Lieberman-D
Trent Lott-R
Mitch McConnell-R
Robert Menendez-D
Barbara Mikulski-D
Ken Salazar-D
Chuck Schumer-D
Debbie Stabenow-D
Jim Webb-D
At D=14 R=4, it could hardly be considered broadly bipartisan. But, to your point, Republicans are just as bad.
Thanks for making me snort DCRMD (Diet Code Red Mountain Dew) all over my keyboard and monitor.
Huh. I thought it was only the Republicans who were after our 1st Amendment rights. But here are the Democrats assaulting our freedoms again by trying to control who says what.
<sarcasm>Oh, never mind, they just want to make sure we have "our papers in order" before we can criticize them.</sarcasm> And we thought that they would be for our rights. But it looks like they are just interested in using the power to stay in power.
It's time to lose the naivte and realize that politicians (whether Republicans or Democrats) are only interested in one thing--getting re-elected.
Thanks for making me snort iced coffee through my nose.
I saw that after I hit "Submit." I guess I was trying too hard to have the frist psot.
The point was, your post begged the questions: "is the media controlled by few people, or many?" and "compared to what?"
I didn't miss your point; I understood it completely. But, there is no necessity that I am either a) incorrect about media diversity, or b) the president of a major broadcast network. I could be neither.
But anyway, I'll bite. Surely you're not denying that the media that would be covered by the Fairness Doctrine is controlled by fewer people/corporations than in the past? If so, please check these out:I wG&b=2127045
i a_ownership#United_States
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_med
http://www.corporations.org/media/
Other than that, I'm not sure what you're talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Are you sure that he's libertarian? Libertarian generally means that one is for the least amount of government intrusion into the lives and property of citizens.
While he's for getting the government out of some things, like the so-called "War on Drugs," the Patriot Act, and abortion, he's also very socialist on many issues, such as:
-health care
-education
-Social Security
-farming
-worker's rights
The way I see it, the "Fairness" Doctrine is a way for the people who currently have their views spoon-fed to them by corporate hacks to get their spoon-feeding from government hacks.
I was going to sit out this flamewar, but I just have to get involved.
Despite quite a bit of disagreement with him, I have a fair amount of respect for Kucinich, if for no other reason than he at least *seems* to be consistent in what he says and does. And like him, I am worried that the media is now in the hands of so few people, but who would police this "fairness?
<sarcasm>Surely politicians are bought and sold by corporate interests. Surely we can trust committees of appointees to handle things in a "present controversial issues in an honest, equal, and balanced manner."</sarcasm>
It seems like everyone in the political scene thinks that there is a media bias one way or another, and, for all I know, there probably is but I don't see it being made better by putting the politicians in charge of it.
FTA: While I have the utmost respect for Mr Mossberg, I can't help but feel that the words in the second paragraph contradict and negate the words of the first. To my mind, a logical layout of commands and functions would obviate the need to learn how to find those commands and functions.
While I have the utmost respect for Mr. Beer, I can't help but feel that he has laid out an impossibly high standard for software menus. Is it even possible to, as he puts it, "obviate the need to learn how to find those commands and functions?"
Take what I said with a grain of salt, I'm bitter 'cause wish I had a kewl last name like his. Cue the "free-as-in-beer jokes." In 3, 2, 1...
Hah...my opinion is that the political system is corrupted by money and association. Here's a little something about your new Speaker of the House.
Of course, it's hard to believe that the Republicans have the nerve to bitch about it (put me in mind of something about logs and specks or maybe pots and kettle), but they do.
Maybe it's true about the "banality of evil."
Regarding the heat issue, if you're based as an IT specialist in an industrial environment, then you have to liase with the site engineers for this kind of task. It's outside of your experience/training/knowledge, so don't succumb to vanity and assume that you have the intelligence to pull through it unaided. Such a place will already have other heat and interference-sensitive equipment which has been installed by engineers on-site, and they'll be able to do the same for your equipment.
Having dealt with more than a few extreme networks environments, I agree wholeheartedly with this. There are plenty of great DIY projects--this IS NOT one of them. DO NOT take technical advice from some anonymous source on slashdot, they are not the one who is going to get fired when it all comes crashing down. Pay the money for an expert with credentials, a history of proven results, follow-up on his/her references and get a guarantee. Otherwise, you're just asking to be canned.
Well, I was going to make a snide remark about how they spent their honeymoon, but I really like Picasa, so I refrained.
However, I remember this happening the last time I stayed in a hotel (a Hilton Garden). At least I kept getting redirected. I am more than a little miffed that hotels are charging me *and* spying on me.
Next time I will use the VPN.
Right. I just did a data transfer onto a new Duo Core eMachines for a customer. It was loaded with "craplets." Wild Tangent, (essentially spyware), five different AOL entries, a useless 90-day trial of McAfee, a useless 60-day trial of Office, The Big Fix (totally redundant--manages Windows Updates), a 30-day trial of Napster and other useless and memory-hogging crap.
I'm used to starting with a clean hard drive and installing an OEM Windows, so I was horrified by how many apps were running in the system tray the first time it booted. And, just like you said, it didn't come with a proper install CD.
Secondly, even in your hypothetical example, 55 laws were passed, and 30 repealed. Your argument would have been perfect, except that it fails second grade math, and the fact that it requires that there are no old laws around. This is obviously not the case.
Check *your* math or reread my post. 30 is more than half of 55.
Is it really so clear? Does the number of laws on the books necessarily indicate that other laws are unlikely to be repealed? I think not. Hypothetical example:
So, in 2003, there are twenty-five laws in force, which is more than at any other time in the history of Udderly. However, a total of thirty laws have been repealed. So, given the past history of laws in Udderly, we could say that a law is *more likely* to be repealed than not.
In addition is seems that we might be in danger of incongruity. Just because Congress makes a new law, does not mean that this law has anything to do with the restricting of historical freedoms and therefore doesn't really impact the matter in question.
Here is some evidence to back that up. And those are just the funny ones.
The fact that there are a some laws left over from bygone eras does not in any sense support the assertion that restrictive laws are unlikely to be repealed. Anecdotes give no indication of the probability of something occurring or not occurring. If I said that I am very likely to win the lottery on one $1 bet and gave you a link to a website about a former lottery winner, would you accept that as supporting my assertion?
Now I think we are getting close to the heart of our differences. You seem to care more that your logic is correct than that your conclusions are correct. I am the opposite.
Once again, you have made an assertion that is unsupported in any way. Or is your evidence that I simply disagree with you, so therefore I must not be as rigorous in the pursuit of "correct conclusions?"
In other news, repeat burglary offenders complain that dead-bolt locks give homeowners an unfair advantage.
This is not a logical fallacy - it is human nature. Once you start down the slope it is easier to move farther down than it is to climb back up - and you do not want to end up at the bottom! The only reason what you said wasn't totally offtopic was the fact that the OP did what most people do when they are trying to convince others - he overstated his case. 'Very well may' is not as nice sounding as 'must surely be', and so he chose the latter. In short, the logical fallacy of the 'slippery slope' is a strawman - it disproves something other than the original (correctly worded) argument.
How interesting that you choose to try to invalidate one logical fallacy with another. However, I will take your objections at face value and assume that you're not just cherry-picking the logical rules that benefit your argument.
It is true that there are very limited instances where a "slippery slope" is not a logical fallacy, but these limited instances involve an independent verifiable factor that connects the antecedent (in this case that one needs an ID to fly on a plane) inevitably to an outcome (in this case that IDs might/will be required at the state line). There is no factor like that here and this is why the slippery slope is simple sophistry in this example. That the OP might have said "might" instead of "will" does not make a difference in terms of logic--it is still an unsupported assertion that assumes an unproven mechanism of inevitability or likelihood.
This is the problem with a slippery slope argument (and why it is a logical fallacy): the analogy of an actual physical "slippery slope" is flawed. Despite your use of the same metaphorical mechanism (in bold), there is no *actual* uphill or downhill nor any *actual* slipperiness. In this case especially, since it is theoretically just as easy to repeal a law as to enact a new one that goes further in the same direction, and since neither you nor the OP has presented any evidence to the contrary. And no, simply claiming that it's "human nature" does not qualify. It *is* a good device to communicate an idea, and it may even turn out to be correct, but it has no more place in classical logic than anecdotal evidence or appeal to emotion.
Please understand that I'm not necessarily in favor of the current situation, but to say that it's likely that one will need to show their ID at the state line is either pretty paranoid or sensationalism. We all certainly have a responsibility to guard our liberties but my opinion is that this sort fear-mongering is counter-productive.
As an aside, it's not like continuing curtailment is inevitable or that it's never happened before. The curtailment of individual liberties during WWII was quite draconian and yet we regained the vast majority of these liberties at the end of the war.
I'm truly confused; are you:
1. saying that "slippery slope" is not a logical fallacy
2. claiming that what the OP said does not apply to the logical fallacy known as slippery slope
3. saying something else entirely
If you are saying #1, you don't have a problem with my statement, but with the accepted rules of logic. If you are saying #2, you must be joking--that is a classic example of slippery slope (did you read the example in the provided link?). If #3, please explain, I don't understand.
Thanks a load (he says after cleaning Diet Code Red Mountain Dew off of his keyboard).
You should have used the "<humor>" and "</humor>" tags.
for how much longer? How soon before being required to show ID when crossing a State Line? How soon before being required to show ID when checking into Hotels/Motels? How soon before being required to check in with the local police station when you intend to stay somewhere more than a few hours? How soon before having to get written permission before you can travel more than so many miles from your nominated place of residence?
Slippery slope people... they'll nibble away at your "freedom" by adding little "reasonable seeming" requirements here and there... all in the name of protecting you from terrorism/saving the children from pedophiles/whatever the current "bete noir" is...
It's interesting that that you mentioned the "slippery slope," since this is a well-known logical fallacy.
1. Buy Sealand on credit, you can get a loan anywhere these days.
2. Apply for your own TLD.
3. Open up for a new domain rush, demand ridicilous prices for certain domains
4. Release the loan using the income from domain sales.
5. You own Sealand, you are king.
You forgot:
6. Profit!!