Both are promoting sexual attraction to a wrong target.
Tell me, how does one go about "promoting sexual attraction?" There are hundreds of thousands of slashdotters who would pay a LOT of money for that kind of information...
it's important to keep in mind that intellectual property, unlike physical property, isn't naturally scarce--you can replicate it ad infinitum at essentially no cost.
Sure, if you have the tools, which are not costless, and the knowledge of how to use them, which is also not costless. Most people in the world today have neither. Does this mean they are "unnatural?"
On the contrary, the replication of information is naturally scarce. Throughout human history, replicating information has not been costless. It has been difficult, time-consuming, costly, and imperfect, usually requiring skills and/or tools not available to the average person. How would you rate the "cost" of, say, copying the Bible by hand? Or committing the Iliad to memory?
It is only with technology that the cost of replicating information drops. This seems to me the very opposite of "natural." Copyright serves the purpose of preserving some level of scarcity in a decidedly unnatural environment.
In order to cause damage, the volume has to be high enough to hurt.
This is absolutely not true, as others have pointed out. Permanent hearing loss can occur at much lower volumes than that.
Everyone who is harping about "common sense" should take note of the parent post. Common sense is often very, very wrong.
And yes, there is a point at which common sense finally catches up with reality, and as we approach that point, responsibility begins to shift back onto the consumer. But that isn't what concerns me.
People who manufacture audio equipment are expected to know more than the average person about the conditions under which permanent hearing loss can occur. If their product is capable of producing these conditions, they have a duty to warn the consumer. I don't see what's so controversial about that.
Although frankly, even this strikes me as insufficient. So what if I know that exceeding 85 dB is dangerous? What's 85 dB? How do I know when I've reached it? My volume control only goes from 0 to 10... That means I'm safe, right???:)
I would go even further than that and say that there are some fields which probably shouldn't become richer, at least not simply for richness' sake, and that law is one of them.
The only way someone can gain weight is by eating too much, compared to how much energy their bodies spend on moving and keeping you alive. End of discussion.
But of course, it's not as simple as that. There is no objective way for average people to know when we've had "enough" to eat compared to our caloric requirements. We can only judge based on how we feel: do we still feel hungry, are we still craving food? This is a poor, subjective, and indirect measuring tool. And like everything else, it most likely manifests in a bell curve of variation across the human population. Many people crave more food than they "need." Some crave a LOT more. They are often criticized for being "weak-willed" by others (who of course have never experienced anyone's cravings but their own, and so are not in a position to know). Perhaps the problem is not a weakness of the will after all, but an unusually acute craving.
The same idea comes into play when discussing another favorite/. flamebait topic: gaming addiction. Yes, maybe it's easy for YOU to shut off the PS2, but does that mean that you're strong-willed? Or could it mean that your craving for the game just happens to be relatively mild?
(For the sake of argument, let's pretend I don't realize that you and the "Is that how you sleep at night?" guy are both wearing head-to-toe Target and Banana Republic right now and that I'm impressed with your selfless ideological purity.)
Whereas in the GGGP to which you originally replied, he says, "You are doing business in China, by buying their goods, but you are not evil" (emphasis added). How does this translate into a claim of "selfless ideological purity?"
I'm sufficiently familiar with Pointless Nerd Argumentation to understand the logic of "A is vaguely similar to B, therefore it is impossible to distinguish between A and B." I simply reject it.
While embracing the ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, converse accident, special pleading, etc...
I don't see the point of this. I understand why he made the list (his brain "can't stop humming") and I can almost understand why he would publish it online (very little effort, judging from his HTML), but I have no idea why anyone else would find it interesting at all, let alone worthy of the front page of slashdot (make your own joke). It's just a collection of pointless word lists. It's not even interesting trivia; to be interesting it would have to be rare and unusual, not tens of thousands of words.
1) Slashdot is a collection of individuals - not a hive mind, no matter what you'd like to think.
2) I don't think I've ever...
3) I consider...
Nice try. But let's look at what you said originally: "Microsoft are not considedered [sic] evil for branching into other areas of business." Your use of the passive voice indicates that you are talking about a collective perception of Microsoft, not a personal one.
I'd chalk it up to a poor choice of words, but it isn't really fair to berate people for replying to what you said instead of what you meant.
New technology will go wherever the marketplace demands that it should go. If the Invisible Hand thinks that this use of technology is appropriate, that's good enough for me.
So, a single gallon of gasoline has enough energy, in a modern electric furnace, to melt over thirty six metric tons of steel in a modern electric furnace.
Assuming perfect efficiency, lots of amazing things are possible, assuming perfect efficiency.
Before copyright racketeering, we had ten thousand years of art, music and creation.
And for all of that time, it was very difficult and time-consuming to make an accurate copy of a work of art, and it required a lot of skill. Then along came the printing press, which made it easier and quicker. It wasn't long before the idea of copying someone else's work to sell it as one's own became profitable. In other words, improvements in copying technology are what created the need for copyright protection in the first place. So how does the fact that it's easier to make copies now than ever before mean that we need less copyright protection? Just the opposite is true.
Small bands that give away their music are seeing increased sales of show tickets and merchandise.
Some are, some aren't. That's beside the point: They are still protected by copyright. If I started selling their music, claiming that I wrote it, even a brainwashed idealogue such as yourself can surely see that I shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.
Also, not all people who create sound recordings are "bands." Many are not even "musicians." How are ticket sales and merchandise going to help me if I make audiobook recordings or language training CDs?
Nah, let's get even less specific and just call it "crime." Or wait! How about maybe just "bad"? While we're at it, let's stop all this silly talk of Fords and Saturns and SUVs and just call 'em all "cars". And we can definitely do without all of the ridiculous kitchen words like "fry" and "roast" and "microwave" and "steam" and "simmer" and just call it what it is: Cooking.
I just call everything "Marklar," to avoid confusion.
When there were fewer people, there was less competition for a given job.
And fewer jobs. But that's beside the point.
I agree that sprawl is a problem. Where I disagree with you is in the suggestion that it is the cause, rather than the effect, of people commuting by car. The typical 60-mile commuter could live closer to work, or work closer to home, if he really wanted or needed to. The car simply prevents him from wanting or needing to. And even in the unlikely case that he really couldn't possibly change jobs or move to a new home, no one is suggesting that he should bike 120 miles a day. There is no reason, however, why he couldn't bike the last 5 or 10 miles. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Every little bit helps.
What you say about sprawl would be somewhat true if everyone in the U.S. decided to quit using cars simultaneously. This would obviously be a strain, and it would cause all sorts of new and unexpected competitions for jobs and real estate. But sprawl didn't arrive overnight, and it doesn't have to go away overnight either. Society will reshape itself according to how people choose to live, one choice at a time. This is exactly how sprawl got here in the first place.
There is no end to the excuses people will use to avoid reducing the number of miles they drive, even when they seem to be aware of the problems that cars cause. But the truth of it is that most people have simply never given it any serious thought. Driving to work is just What Is Done. Most people, when confronted with the idea of alternative transportation, will only think about it for as long as it takes them to find a convenient excuse. Your comment about unsafe roads struck me in this way. It's hard for me to believe that you're really worried about unsafe roads in the winter, since you seem perfectly willing to drive on them. And again, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. If there really is some compelling reason why you can't bike in the winter, then don't do it. But that isn't a reason not to bike at all.
I think the point you're missing here is that some of us don't *want* a job where superficial impressions are regarded as being so important. Yes, I realize that it may limit my job opportunities, but in the end, I only need one job. If it doesn't pay quite as well, that's fine with me. I'll gladly give up the extra pittance if it means I can avoid the extra hassle, expense, and unpaid time involved in clothes shopping, accessorizing, dry cleaning, American-Psycho-style grooming rituals, etc. In the end, I think I come out ahead, psychologically as well as financially. As Thoreau said, "Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes."
The same kind of thinking applies in other situations. For instance, a lot of employers say that they would never even consider hiring someone who neglected to observe the insincere formality of sending a thank-you note after an interview. This strikes me as unbelievably petty, and as such, it reflects badly on the employer. So, as a rule, I never send thank-you notes, reasoning that it will weed out the petty employers for whom I wouldn't want to work anyway.
I've done it both ways, and I vastly prefer the relaxed, easygoing, informal type of work environment to the superficial, uptight, petty type. YMMV.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, quite. It means it's not an ad hominem argument. From the same link you gave, an ad hominem fallacy has the following form:
Please show me which part of the GP post corresponds with #3.
Tell me, how does one go about "promoting sexual attraction?" There are hundreds of thousands of slashdotters who would pay a LOT of money for that kind of information...
Sure, if you have the tools, which are not costless, and the knowledge of how to use them, which is also not costless. Most people in the world today have neither. Does this mean they are "unnatural?"
On the contrary, the replication of information is naturally scarce. Throughout human history, replicating information has not been costless. It has been difficult, time-consuming, costly, and imperfect, usually requiring skills and/or tools not available to the average person. How would you rate the "cost" of, say, copying the Bible by hand? Or committing the Iliad to memory?
It is only with technology that the cost of replicating information drops. This seems to me the very opposite of "natural." Copyright serves the purpose of preserving some level of scarcity in a decidedly unnatural environment.
This is absolutely not true, as others have pointed out. Permanent hearing loss can occur at much lower volumes than that.
Everyone who is harping about "common sense" should take note of the parent post. Common sense is often very, very wrong.
And yes, there is a point at which common sense finally catches up with reality, and as we approach that point, responsibility begins to shift back onto the consumer. But that isn't what concerns me.
People who manufacture audio equipment are expected to know more than the average person about the conditions under which permanent hearing loss can occur. If their product is capable of producing these conditions, they have a duty to warn the consumer. I don't see what's so controversial about that.
Although frankly, even this strikes me as insufficient. So what if I know that exceeding 85 dB is dangerous? What's 85 dB? How do I know when I've reached it? My volume control only goes from 0 to 10... That means I'm safe, right??? :)
I would go even further than that and say that there are some fields which probably shouldn't become richer, at least not simply for richness' sake, and that law is one of them.
But of course, it's not as simple as that. There is no objective way for average people to know when we've had "enough" to eat compared to our caloric requirements. We can only judge based on how we feel: do we still feel hungry, are we still craving food? This is a poor, subjective, and indirect measuring tool. And like everything else, it most likely manifests in a bell curve of variation across the human population. Many people crave more food than they "need." Some crave a LOT more. They are often criticized for being "weak-willed" by others (who of course have never experienced anyone's cravings but their own, and so are not in a position to know). Perhaps the problem is not a weakness of the will after all, but an unusually acute craving.
The same idea comes into play when discussing another favorite /. flamebait topic: gaming addiction. Yes, maybe it's easy for YOU to shut off the PS2, but does that mean that you're strong-willed? Or could it mean that your craving for the game just happens to be relatively mild?
Whereas in the GGGP to which you originally replied, he says, "You are doing business in China, by buying their goods, but you are not evil" (emphasis added). How does this translate into a claim of "selfless ideological purity?"
I'm sufficiently familiar with Pointless Nerd Argumentation to understand the logic of "A is vaguely similar to B, therefore it is impossible to distinguish between A and B." I simply reject it.
While embracing the ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, converse accident, special pleading, etc...
What's next? Books: Telephone Directory?
Nice try. But let's look at what you said originally: "Microsoft are not considedered [sic] evil for branching into other areas of business." Your use of the passive voice indicates that you are talking about a collective perception of Microsoft, not a personal one.
I'd chalk it up to a poor choice of words, but it isn't really fair to berate people for replying to what you said instead of what you meant.
I don't see how that could be done without falsifying earlier edits.
Hey if you don't like them, just edit th-- Uh nevermind.
Is it my fault you aren't funny?
No. You're thinking of the MPA.
Are you daft?
Yes, I know. It's almost impossible to mock libertarians. Even the most ridiculous statement I can think of seems to have genuine adherents.
That was sarcasm.
Assuming perfect efficiency, lots of amazing things are possible, assuming perfect efficiency.
And for all of that time, it was very difficult and time-consuming to make an accurate copy of a work of art, and it required a lot of skill. Then along came the printing press, which made it easier and quicker. It wasn't long before the idea of copying someone else's work to sell it as one's own became profitable. In other words, improvements in copying technology are what created the need for copyright protection in the first place. So how does the fact that it's easier to make copies now than ever before mean that we need less copyright protection? Just the opposite is true.
Small bands that give away their music are seeing increased sales of show tickets and merchandise.
Some are, some aren't. That's beside the point: They are still protected by copyright. If I started selling their music, claiming that I wrote it, even a brainwashed idealogue such as yourself can surely see that I shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.
Also, not all people who create sound recordings are "bands." Many are not even "musicians." How are ticket sales and merchandise going to help me if I make audiobook recordings or language training CDs?
And fewer jobs. But that's beside the point.
I agree that sprawl is a problem. Where I disagree with you is in the suggestion that it is the cause, rather than the effect, of people commuting by car. The typical 60-mile commuter could live closer to work, or work closer to home, if he really wanted or needed to. The car simply prevents him from wanting or needing to. And even in the unlikely case that he really couldn't possibly change jobs or move to a new home, no one is suggesting that he should bike 120 miles a day. There is no reason, however, why he couldn't bike the last 5 or 10 miles. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Every little bit helps.
What you say about sprawl would be somewhat true if everyone in the U.S. decided to quit using cars simultaneously. This would obviously be a strain, and it would cause all sorts of new and unexpected competitions for jobs and real estate. But sprawl didn't arrive overnight, and it doesn't have to go away overnight either. Society will reshape itself according to how people choose to live, one choice at a time. This is exactly how sprawl got here in the first place.
There is no end to the excuses people will use to avoid reducing the number of miles they drive, even when they seem to be aware of the problems that cars cause. But the truth of it is that most people have simply never given it any serious thought. Driving to work is just What Is Done. Most people, when confronted with the idea of alternative transportation, will only think about it for as long as it takes them to find a convenient excuse. Your comment about unsafe roads struck me in this way. It's hard for me to believe that you're really worried about unsafe roads in the winter, since you seem perfectly willing to drive on them. And again, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. If there really is some compelling reason why you can't bike in the winter, then don't do it. But that isn't a reason not to bike at all.
How in the world did people ever get to work in the winter before there were cars? /sarcasm
Since when do livestock wear clothes?
The same kind of thinking applies in other situations. For instance, a lot of employers say that they would never even consider hiring someone who neglected to observe the insincere formality of sending a thank-you note after an interview. This strikes me as unbelievably petty, and as such, it reflects badly on the employer. So, as a rule, I never send thank-you notes, reasoning that it will weed out the petty employers for whom I wouldn't want to work anyway.
I've done it both ways, and I vastly prefer the relaxed, easygoing, informal type of work environment to the superficial, uptight, petty type. YMMV.
It's the only way civil court proceedings can be made even remotely fair
You mean by tipping the scales even further in favor of the wealthy?
Most slashdotters' sex lives end with a payout. Of course, they're the ones doing the paying out (and it isn't for libel)...