It has become too easy for most to forget that the only reason we respect any non-living entity's rights at all is to promote perceived benefits to the culture itself. When companies break that social contract - just as an individual might when they kill or steal - a bit of punishment is in order.
Personally, I have not decided whether I think Microsoft's behavior violates that social contract [as I'm sure many others haven't, either, and especially the courts]. But in the absence of certainty, in cases like this, it seems prudent to stop that behavior until such a judgement *can* be made.
Sweet merciful crap, thank you. I am so very tired of the old "well if we just had a real free market" tirade. Capitalism in this country used to have limits - social rules so that "profit" wasn't a euphemism for "profit at all costs."
That world is long gone and the sooner the "free market" capitalists realize that, the better. In the meantime, posts like the GP's need to be smacked down every time they come up because seriously, it's just plain wrong.
It's a fallacy only when taken out of context - "It sounds believable so it must be true!"
In this case, the unspoken reference is to people being able to believe our government would do things we once believed it would NEVER do - not a fallacy, in this case. Although, I see where you're coming from.
Just accept it, the government is a legalized mafia, they are TOP DOG, and sometimes above the law.
I do not understand why it's so seemingly difficult for people to comprehend that idea [except for the obvious - that idea means that we're responsible for the world we create, rather than allowing ourselves to be passive participants]. The same is true of any sufficiently large, supposedly legitimate group - it possesses authority only because lots of people agree (or acquiesce) that it does. Government, religion, anything.
To some degree, this appeal to authority is necessary; humans as social animals require structured social rules [there have been several notable indigenous tribes of which this is not true, but as a general rule it holds]. We are not anarchists at heart.
We live in an age, however, where we've lost the ability to recognize our convenient structural rules from our own abstract concepts - rather than understand that we create rules to make the world easier for ourselves, we instead believe government to be a concrete entity as equally real as any actual object sitting next to us. This leads to blind obedience.. and it is becoming increasingly difficult to go back.
I have not yet decided whether that's a good or bad thing.
I'm not saying that any one view is better than another, although for my own part I think that it might help reduce crime by increasing the probability of getting caught and thus changing the pay-off matrix for the criminals
Here's another way to look at it, which it doesn't seem like anyone has really considered..
If the only way your populace obeys the law is because they know they might get caught.. what does that say about your society? What does a society really have to offer, that can only control its people through intimidation?
Despite my moniker, I am not actually making such a judgement about life in Britain - that is for you Brits to decide [I am American, and am equally dismayed by my own government's desire to now prohibit all travel except by the DHS's approval]. I merely think it valuable for you all to consider the thought.
There's only one thing certain: we WILL survive, nature WILL survive, and even if some species are lost, new will appear. It's part of the evolutionary cycle.
Nature will survive, yes.
Whether WE survive is not at all guaranteed. New species may appear, but 'nature' has absolutely no reason to value our species above any other.
From a long term stand point (decades) overfishing doesn't impact sea life
While I might be willing to accept that idea (provided a source), it would also depend on all else being equal - and all else certainly isn't equal, given the vast quantities of pollutants we dump in the oceans every year. This is because fishing isn't the only thing that reduces fish populations - and many of our pollutants have the annoying side effect of making fish sterile.
It's similar to the concept if you kill off *nearly* all the predetors the rabbit population can increase and sustain more predetors. (Asuming there is enough bottom food chain to sustain the rabbits).
Actually, there's an attrition point in that problem where if there are too few [example predator], then it doesn't matter how much food there is - there are too few [example predator] to find each other and reproduce. The species [or local group of the species] dies anyway.
Nature has a way of balancing itself out. That is how it has always been.
An important part of that statement, though, is that Nature doesn't particularly care if it loses a few hundreds species in order to 'balance out.' 'Nature' is just the natural laws at work. Even if the world were a scorched black surface, 'nature' would still balance itself out.
In the absence of the human species, nature will still balance itself out. And Nature will balance itself out even if we're the only species left, probably by killing off a large number of us.
Nature is as unforgiving as the laws of the universe. What we care about is not saving 'the world' - it's saving OUR world. 'Nature' has no such compunction. Yes, nature will balance itself out... we just want to make sure we don't get canceled out.
Although I disabled AutoRun via TweakUI prior to inserting the disc - I'm not stupid.
Autorun is stupid. I have a list of things I do straight away whenever I take control of a computer, and permanently disabling Autorun is one of them, because I got sick of stuff starting up right when I would insert the disc. Avoiding the Sony rootkit installs is an added bonus.
And exactly where is this higher pay going to originate, since you keep Walmart (and the low paying jobs they need to survive) going?
What you're saying is that a relatively large group of people must be willing to suffer, and potentially make their families and children suffer, for the good of a cause.
I realize how strongly you might want the goal - but you'll never get it from most people when that is what you expect.
This is something I've thought a great deal about, and something I have yet to think of a way around. I have my own pet ideals that I wish everyone would "just understand and do it" but I have been around long enough to realize that isn't really productive.
We want immediate gratification, even if "immediate gratification" means something takes 25 years instead of 100. We want it faster rather and usually that is simply not possible when human nature is a factor, particularly with social issues.
Nobody - and I mean nobody - will sacrifice their well being, particularly their family's well being, for a cause, unless the price of NOT sacrificing is far higher (not just marginally higher - far higher). Usually, the only time that is true is in massive wars.
Which is, incidentally, why I think a huge world war wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. War makes change easy.
And for the record, I'm Best Buy-free for about 4 years now because of their business model.
Same here. I don't know what aspects of their business model you're referring to, but for me, when I go to Best Buy and I see a DVD set "On Sale" for $49.99 that is on Amazon.com at a regular price of $14.99, I am not going to buy it at Best Buy, and in fact I'll get outright angry at Best Buy for trying to take my hard earned money of which I never seem to have enough.
I consider that kind of markup to be theft, or at least extreme dishonesty - representing that that's a fair price for the product when I know it isn't. Of course its value to ME plays into that, but I'm talking just the price on the shelf versus the website - why is it a fair price in one place and not the other?
I WILL pay a higher price to buy something in a store if only for the convenience of buying it - but only if it's within several dollars of the online price.
By the way I should add that I once watched Fox News quite often and usually enjoyed it. But as I continued to watch it, and as Iraq became a growing issue a few years ago, I began to see little other than dogma and demagoguery on that channel - and it ceased being even interesting to watch. That is MY bias, if one cares to know the experience that has lead to my opinions about Fox News.
It's possible to be biased and factual. The Economist does pretty well at doing both.
If somebody tells only one side of the story and does it *truthfully* then we're better informed after reading them.
I agree completely. I think a source that states its assumptions and biases is more trustworthy than one that doesn't. You may not necessarily have a complete picture, but at least you honestly know what part of the picture you DO have.
Which is odd when you consider that many other shows on Fox take pokes at the network all the time (especially in the Simpsons, etc)
You know what, I've thought about that too. It's so strange how Fox News seems so biased to the conservative agenda yet The Simpsons seems very liberal.
Maybe I misunderstood OP, but I read it as: Hint: It's time to take action...not as the strawman you describe.
Hmm.. reading it again I suppose it could be read that way. Ok, I'll buy that.
I read a while ago that crime increased with difference of income, not simply with the 'poor'....so this is where things like social programs make people far less likely to think they need to commit crime... but that's just a wild-ass guess.
I remember reading the same thing. It makes sense, too. Honestly I think the more disenfranchised people feel, the more likely they are to do something extreme. People who feel even moderately comfortable with their life aren't going to be as violent. It'll still happen and there are always exceptions to the rule but I think it stands, simply as an observation on human nature.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be a topic widely studied, though. You make one factual statement and half the country comes down on your head because they don't agree with you; I think this keeps researchers from honestly investigating the issue.
he's looking at a condo townhouse where the property taxes are closer to $5400 US/year. Madness!
I can't find the reference now, but recently alot of states and cities have been looking to raise property taxes for the very simple reason that property can't get up and move away.
Americans are so averse to raising taxes that about the only thing that is easily taxable is property. People will scream bloody murder if you try to raise sales tax 0.5%, and they can even move away if they want - but when you raise property taxes, you can scream all you want but you can't exactly take your ball and go home.
At least one difference between Fox News and The Daily Show (putting factual accuracy aside for the moment) is that the Daily Show makes no bones about being biased - it makes no attempt to hide behind objectivity. Fox News, on the other hand, actually takes itself seriously.
Bias in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing; attempting to claim objectivity when clearly you're not objective is far worse. Owning up to your own bias is in my estimation, a very mature thing to do.
Second, I'm never very impressed by slippery slope arguments.
Well, and to be honest neither am I, and I think we're not impressed for one very simple reason: believing the argument requires believing in the "What If" upon which the argument relies, and that's rather difficult to do because that outcome is not at all guaranteed.
I find a different value in 'slippery slope' arguments than the logical conclusion they claim to purport, though - the value I find in them is the warning they provide, the pause for thought that they encourage. Slippery slope arguments only arise when we're about to do something we think might possibly be very stupid, and there's value to be had in rethinking that course of action.
I should warn against dismissing the slippery slope out of hand, though - there have been several notable totalitarian dictatorships in our history, some quite recently, where that tendency towards moderation did not succeed. And the worst part about this is that with the advances we've made in technology since those dictatorships fell, they only become easier and easier to recreate.
I should think the warning would become even more meaningful now.
And if you truly believed in the validity of the slippery slope argument, you would be vehemently objecting to everything people have done since abandoning anarchy, on account of everything being exactly the same kind of tradeoff you object to here.
Not at all - because they're not all exactly the same kind of tradeoff. And I do think it's far more complex than you give it credit, here.
Are you one of those people who believes that nobody who photographs a bridge may be planning to blow it up? Or are you one of those people who believes that the occasional blown-up bridge is worth it, so long as your desire to take pictures of bridges is not scrutinized?
I read this, and then all of the requisite replies down the entire thread and couldn't quite lay my finger on why this argument disturbs me, and then it dawned on me:
Let's say for the sake of argument that the country's photographers do acquiesce and say "Well, I don't like it, but for the time being I'll accept that I can't take pictures of that bridge, or the nation's monuments, or highways, for the sake of safety, to make it easier for law enforcement to identify potential terrorists."
Assume for a moment that they agree to such a bargain.
And assume that people agree to stop taking carry ons in their airline luggage.
And assume that people agree to warrantless domestic wiretaps.
And assume that people agree to increased camera surveillance in public areas.
And assume that..
My point is.. at what point do you decide your liberty has been sufficiently taken away as to be able to consider yourself no longer free? At which of those points did we move from "free country" to "police state"?
The answers is.. none of them. I'm essentially merely making the 'slippery slope' argument, but it seems like you can't understand why someone would want to retain their right and freedom to photograph the nation's achievements. The answer is.. because every time we let them take something away, we move one step closer to the kind of world we don't want to live in. We have to stop them HERE, no further - because once you finally decide it's time to fight, it's usually too late to. Something like taking pictures may seem trivial, but these kinds of battles will never be over major rights and liberties - those would be too obvious. They'll always be over little things, which is why the power that be have to understand that they can't take our freedoms away - even the little ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you.
It has become too easy for most to forget that the only reason we respect any non-living entity's rights at all is to promote perceived benefits to the culture itself. When companies break that social contract - just as an individual might when they kill or steal - a bit of punishment is in order.
Personally, I have not decided whether I think Microsoft's behavior violates that social contract [as I'm sure many others haven't, either, and especially the courts]. But in the absence of certainty, in cases like this, it seems prudent to stop that behavior until such a judgement *can* be made.
Sweet merciful crap, thank you. I am so very tired of the old "well if we just had a real free market" tirade. Capitalism in this country used to have limits - social rules so that "profit" wasn't a euphemism for "profit at all costs."
That world is long gone and the sooner the "free market" capitalists realize that, the better. In the meantime, posts like the GP's need to be smacked down every time they come up because seriously, it's just plain wrong.
It's a fallacy only when taken out of context - "It sounds believable so it must be true!"
In this case, the unspoken reference is to people being able to believe our government would do things we once believed it would NEVER do - not a fallacy, in this case. Although, I see where you're coming from.
To some degree, this appeal to authority is necessary; humans as social animals require structured social rules [there have been several notable indigenous tribes of which this is not true, but as a general rule it holds]. We are not anarchists at heart.
We live in an age, however, where we've lost the ability to recognize our convenient structural rules from our own abstract concepts - rather than understand that we create rules to make the world easier for ourselves, we instead believe government to be a concrete entity as equally real as any actual object sitting next to us. This leads to blind obedience.. and it is becoming increasingly difficult to go back.
I have not yet decided whether that's a good or bad thing.
That's the world we're walking into.
If the only way your populace obeys the law is because they know they might get caught.. what does that say about your society? What does a society really have to offer, that can only control its people through intimidation?
Despite my moniker, I am not actually making such a judgement about life in Britain - that is for you Brits to decide [I am American, and am equally dismayed by my own government's desire to now prohibit all travel except by the DHS's approval]. I merely think it valuable for you all to consider the thought.
Whether WE survive is not at all guaranteed. New species may appear, but 'nature' has absolutely no reason to value our species above any other.
Actually, there's an attrition point in that problem where if there are too few [example predator], then it doesn't matter how much food there is - there are too few [example predator] to find each other and reproduce. The species [or local group of the species] dies anyway.
In the absence of the human species, nature will still balance itself out. And Nature will balance itself out even if we're the only species left, probably by killing off a large number of us.
Nature is as unforgiving as the laws of the universe. What we care about is not saving 'the world' - it's saving OUR world. 'Nature' has no such compunction. Yes, nature will balance itself out... we just want to make sure we don't get canceled out.
Holy crap that's hilarious. I almost passed out from lack of oxygen... ahhhhhhhhhhhh thanks!
I realize how strongly you might want the goal - but you'll never get it from most people when that is what you expect.
This is something I've thought a great deal about, and something I have yet to think of a way around. I have my own pet ideals that I wish everyone would "just understand and do it" but I have been around long enough to realize that isn't really productive.
We want immediate gratification, even if "immediate gratification" means something takes 25 years instead of 100. We want it faster rather and usually that is simply not possible when human nature is a factor, particularly with social issues.
Nobody - and I mean nobody - will sacrifice their well being, particularly their family's well being, for a cause, unless the price of NOT sacrificing is far higher (not just marginally higher - far higher). Usually, the only time that is true is in massive wars.
Which is, incidentally, why I think a huge world war wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. War makes change easy.
I'm confused as to what your post is about..
I consider that kind of markup to be theft, or at least extreme dishonesty - representing that that's a fair price for the product when I know it isn't. Of course its value to ME plays into that, but I'm talking just the price on the shelf versus the website - why is it a fair price in one place and not the other?
I WILL pay a higher price to buy something in a store if only for the convenience of buying it - but only if it's within several dollars of the online price.
By the way I should add that I once watched Fox News quite often and usually enjoyed it. But as I continued to watch it, and as Iraq became a growing issue a few years ago, I began to see little other than dogma and demagoguery on that channel - and it ceased being even interesting to watch. That is MY bias, if one cares to know the experience that has lead to my opinions about Fox News.
I remember reading the same thing. It makes sense, too. Honestly I think the more disenfranchised people feel, the more likely they are to do something extreme. People who feel even moderately comfortable with their life aren't going to be as violent. It'll still happen and there are always exceptions to the rule but I think it stands, simply as an observation on human nature.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be a topic widely studied, though. You make one factual statement and half the country comes down on your head because they don't agree with you; I think this keeps researchers from honestly investigating the issue.
Americans are so averse to raising taxes that about the only thing that is easily taxable is property. People will scream bloody murder if you try to raise sales tax 0.5%, and they can even move away if they want - but when you raise property taxes, you can scream all you want but you can't exactly take your ball and go home.
Though, I'm of the opinion gun violence comes from social problems, not from the mere presence of guns themselves.
At least one difference between Fox News and The Daily Show (putting factual accuracy aside for the moment) is that the Daily Show makes no bones about being biased - it makes no attempt to hide behind objectivity. Fox News, on the other hand, actually takes itself seriously.
Bias in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing; attempting to claim objectivity when clearly you're not objective is far worse. Owning up to your own bias is in my estimation, a very mature thing to do.
I find a different value in 'slippery slope' arguments than the logical conclusion they claim to purport, though - the value I find in them is the warning they provide, the pause for thought that they encourage. Slippery slope arguments only arise when we're about to do something we think might possibly be very stupid, and there's value to be had in rethinking that course of action.
I should warn against dismissing the slippery slope out of hand, though - there have been several notable totalitarian dictatorships in our history, some quite recently, where that tendency towards moderation did not succeed. And the worst part about this is that with the advances we've made in technology since those dictatorships fell, they only become easier and easier to recreate.
I should think the warning would become even more meaningful now.
Not at all - because they're not all exactly the same kind of tradeoff. And I do think it's far more complex than you give it credit, here.
Let's say for the sake of argument that the country's photographers do acquiesce and say "Well, I don't like it, but for the time being I'll accept that I can't take pictures of that bridge, or the nation's monuments, or highways, for the sake of safety, to make it easier for law enforcement to identify potential terrorists."
Assume for a moment that they agree to such a bargain.
And assume that people agree to stop taking carry ons in their airline luggage.
And assume that people agree to warrantless domestic wiretaps.
And assume that people agree to increased camera surveillance in public areas.
And assume that..
My point is.. at what point do you decide your liberty has been sufficiently taken away as to be able to consider yourself no longer free? At which of those points did we move from "free country" to "police state"?
The answers is.. none of them. I'm essentially merely making the 'slippery slope' argument, but it seems like you can't understand why someone would want to retain their right and freedom to photograph the nation's achievements. The answer is.. because every time we let them take something away, we move one step closer to the kind of world we don't want to live in. We have to stop them HERE, no further - because once you finally decide it's time to fight, it's usually too late to. Something like taking pictures may seem trivial, but these kinds of battles will never be over major rights and liberties - those would be too obvious. They'll always be over little things, which is why the power that be have to understand that they can't take our freedoms away - even the little ones.