OK, let me get this straight. What you're saying is that the argument requires that there be no (provable) effect in order to be valid? So, all it would take for an argument not to satisfy the hypotheses of this argument would be some solid evidence that the instances of the crime would be reduced by the law being on the books?
Well then, how is that mainstream media forcing their version of reality down our throats? It sounds more like demand and subsequent supply.
Politically/Economically, mainstream media is owned by just a few large companies. The owners and board members of those companies sit on the boards of banks, finance companies, oil companies. Many are in government in the USA and elsewhere.
So the message you get from mainstream media will be whatever serves *their* interests, not yours. You get "Dancing with the stars" instead of muckraking documentaries. Daniel Ellsburg and Woodward and Bernstein would simply have been fired and/or whacked today.
Their interests are, in sum total, money. Force-feeding loses eyeballs and revenue. If they're showing something, it's because their viewers either want to see it, the viewers won't be bored or offended by seeing it, or it's advertising (which is pure revenue).
Basically, the factor with by far the largest influence in these matters is what the eyeballs want to see. They can't really afford to do much outside that.
If you want unbiased truths, you have to go to blogs and bloggers.
Small note: raw =/= unbiased. Many bloggers don't even attempt at minimising their biases (classic example: astroturfers).
"people will break it anyway" does not hold for laws against harming other people...
That's the problem: I don't see why it doesn't. I see the reason why people wouldn't want to apply it to laws against harming other people, but the hypotheses fit (as far as anyone I have encountered has seen fit to explain). It seems to me that what makes the law not desirable is not that it creates an "economy of crime", but the fact that it's a law against harming yourself.
I know how anally-retentive I must sound right now, but there you go. That's who I am.:-)
Oh, so in that case, we would be better off with government-taxed thieves, stalkers, assassins, thugs, saboteurs, etc? They're all services that people require from time to time, all illegal, and as you predicted, all with unregulated black markets.
I'm not saying that marijuana should be illegal, just that I've never seen the reason behind the "people will break it" argument against laws. It's just a catch-all argument that applies to just about every law, but a person only ever applies it to laws he doesn't like.
You missed the other alternative: artists and publishers are forced to allow pirates to screw them and their paying customers over. All else is evil by comparison.
Mods, mod me troll if you want, but that's simply what I feel. It literally nauseated me to think how petty and self-entitled the parent must be.
He says he's fed up with advertising, but as soon as he gets the option to do without (of course, supplementing the revenue it brings), he not only refuses, he tries to construe it as yet another moral reason to continue gorging himself on free entertainment at the expense of, well, everyone else. No more advertising, no more "double-dipping", just a single fixed price representing what it's worth.
But, oh no! That's not good enough! Any attempt at compromise needs to be met with disdain, viewed as a poor attempt. Somehow, the blame for compromise failing needs to be shifted to the producers, because otherwise, the pirate would need to face a choice: become a hypocrite, or even more terrifying, relinquish his free source of entertainment!
well, if I'm already going to take the abuse of being called a pedant, then I might as well point out that I'm pretty sure "obtusery" isn't an actual word. However, the two of you will soon be added to the total of 43 search results google actually has for the word, so congrats on being one of the first.
Thank you! Congrats on being the second. Or third. Or 45th.:-)
Also, it's humorous having you suggest I'm obtuse when you previously suggested my listing of context-specific actions helped to illustrate that there are never context-specific actions on iOS.
Sure, I get it. It is funny, but my point still stands, as does the OP's point. The point was, regardless of the actual wording, that the iThings (borrowing a neat name from a fellow/.er) are designed so that their buttons have very consistent functions over the device's many uses. Sure, there is some context specificity, but it's comparatively tiny compared to, well, pretty much any other device capable of executing 3rd party code. In fact, none of the listed contexts depended on the behaviour of 3rd party app behaviour, which is a feat in itself.
They're also looking for a moratorium on internet piracy cases. Naturally, they don't want to be screwed over while such a moratorium takes place, but they want one nonetheless.
I'm curious: how did you manage to miss the point? It was right there in its own little line:
1. Don't go through Apple.
Done! Problem solved. Apple can't possibly control your PC or your android, or any other smart phone/tablet pc/media player. They can't control your device after you buy it, if you don't buy it in the first place.
I think you illustrated the GP's point. You just showed that you can, for any specific apple device, enumerate the context-specific actions of a button on one hand. Plus, not one of the contexts were dependent on which 3rd party app was running at the time.
Ah, yes, totally a troll comment. Despite the fact that every single one of my points can be backed up with facts if the moderator wasn't a complete dumbass.
If there's one group of people on the internet mature enough to handle such a well-constructed and powerful moderation system, it would be Slashdot. I guess no such group exists.
Sorry. In a democracy, you don't always get what you want. You need majority support. Resorting to violence to bully the majority will (hopefully) get you a taste of your own medicine.
It's funny you say that. "Political Correctness" always seemed like another phrase for "responsibility". You can say whatever you like, and people can respond accordingly. Nowhere does it say that people have to accept it, or be polite about it, or simply not be offended. That would be a serious blow to freedom!
Slashdot Mirror
OK, let me get this straight. What you're saying is that the argument requires that there be no (provable) effect in order to be valid? So, all it would take for an argument not to satisfy the hypotheses of this argument would be some solid evidence that the instances of the crime would be reduced by the law being on the books?
Well then, how is that mainstream media forcing their version of reality down our throats? It sounds more like demand and subsequent supply.
Their interests are, in sum total, money. Force-feeding loses eyeballs and revenue. If they're showing something, it's because their viewers either want to see it, the viewers won't be bored or offended by seeing it, or it's advertising (which is pure revenue).
Basically, the factor with by far the largest influence in these matters is what the eyeballs want to see. They can't really afford to do much outside that.
Small note: raw =/= unbiased. Many bloggers don't even attempt at minimising their biases (classic example: astroturfers).
That's the problem: I don't see why it doesn't. I see the reason why people wouldn't want to apply it to laws against harming other people, but the hypotheses fit (as far as anyone I have encountered has seen fit to explain). It seems to me that what makes the law not desirable is not that it creates an "economy of crime", but the fact that it's a law against harming yourself.
I know how anally-retentive I must sound right now, but there you go. That's who I am. :-)
Oh, so in that case, we would be better off with government-taxed thieves, stalkers, assassins, thugs, saboteurs, etc? They're all services that people require from time to time, all illegal, and as you predicted, all with unregulated black markets.
I'm not saying that marijuana should be illegal, just that I've never seen the reason behind the "people will break it" argument against laws. It's just a catch-all argument that applies to just about every law, but a person only ever applies it to laws he doesn't like.
Why would mainstream media want to force down our throats a toned-down sanitised version of reality? Seriously? What's the motive here?
(And no, generic super-villain moustache-twirling doesn't count.)
Bah. Only a left-wing tree-hugger, or a right-wing gun-nut would rope us proud whateverists in with their crowd.
You missed the other alternative: artists and publishers are forced to allow pirates to screw them and their paying customers over. All else is evil by comparison.
I'd look into your local fire department. ;-)
Oh noes! Choices!
Same old TV with ads?
Same old TV without ads?
Same old TV with ads?
Same old TV without ads?
Same old TV with ads?
Same old TV without ads?
How evil of Google for making me choose!
You mean, people with large groups of friends, who like to see a movie together? Oh noes!
Mods, mod me troll if you want, but that's simply what I feel. It literally nauseated me to think how petty and self-entitled the parent must be.
He says he's fed up with advertising, but as soon as he gets the option to do without (of course, supplementing the revenue it brings), he not only refuses, he tries to construe it as yet another moral reason to continue gorging himself on free entertainment at the expense of, well, everyone else. No more advertising, no more "double-dipping", just a single fixed price representing what it's worth.
But, oh no! That's not good enough! Any attempt at compromise needs to be met with disdain, viewed as a poor attempt. Somehow, the blame for compromise failing needs to be shifted to the producers, because otherwise, the pirate would need to face a choice: become a hypocrite, or even more terrifying, relinquish his free source of entertainment!
OK, I have to go throw up now.
Maybe the word "sacked"?
Thank you! Congrats on being the second. Or third. Or 45th. :-)
Sure, I get it. It is funny, but my point still stands, as does the OP's point. The point was, regardless of the actual wording, that the iThings (borrowing a neat name from a fellow /.er) are designed so that their buttons have very consistent functions over the device's many uses. Sure, there is some context specificity, but it's comparatively tiny compared to, well, pretty much any other device capable of executing 3rd party code. In fact, none of the listed contexts depended on the behaviour of 3rd party app behaviour, which is a feat in itself.
They're also looking for a moratorium on internet piracy cases. Naturally, they don't want to be screwed over while such a moratorium takes place, but they want one nonetheless.
When I watched it, I only saw 3D for the sake of entertainment. What higher cause is there in mindless blockbuster entertainment?
On a side note, did you read amicusNYCL's signature? I think it's very appropriate here:
I'm curious: how did you manage to miss the point? It was right there in its own little line:
Done! Problem solved. Apple can't possibly control your PC or your android, or any other smart phone/tablet pc/media player. They can't control your device after you buy it, if you don't buy it in the first place.
I think you illustrated the GP's point. You just showed that you can, for any specific apple device, enumerate the context-specific actions of a button on one hand. Plus, not one of the contexts were dependent on which 3rd party app was running at the time.
If there's one group of people on the internet mature enough to handle such a well-constructed and powerful moderation system, it would be Slashdot. I guess no such group exists.
Sorry. In a democracy, you don't always get what you want. You need majority support. Resorting to violence to bully the majority will (hopefully) get you a taste of your own medicine.
And rightly so. They certainly fit the definition.
"Headshot!" :-D
It's funny you say that. "Political Correctness" always seemed like another phrase for "responsibility". You can say whatever you like, and people can respond accordingly. Nowhere does it say that people have to accept it, or be polite about it, or simply not be offended. That would be a serious blow to freedom!
Sorry, sorry. Would you prefer "Opposing forces and opposing opposing forces"? How about "Opposition and counter-opposition"?
How does piracy help you play as the Taliban? Or do anything else, for that matter, apart from help companies erode our rights via sympathetic courts?