"However, one thing that struck me was how the OED was basically its own version of Wikipedia at the time...Reading the chapters of the book about this part of the process made it sound very, very similar to Wikipedia in many ways."
This is like a young girl claiming her grandmother resembles her, when in fact its the other way around.
Nothing about the OED process mimics or highlights anything that Wikipedia has done. It's completely the other way around. These new-world, tech-savvy buzzwords like crowd-sourcing and mass collaboration have existed for centuries - nothing has changed but the medium.
Let's all take a step down from the high horse and remember people a lot smarter than us a long time ago created these processes which we all seemed to have rediscovered through technology.
"There's a reason they're out there. In many cases it's because they have a relationship with law enforcement that protects them. By this I mean that they snitch on others who commit larger crimes."
I love speculation. You can say anything! Even when you have no idea what you're talking about.
"Besides, blocking these videos only gives the folks behind them more of a martyr feeling about how people are trying to hold them down and don't want to hear what they're saying."
Yah, because nothing chafes a terrorist's ass more than getting their video pulled from YouTube.
Is this guy fucking serious?
It also continues to be clear that carriers are doing a miserable job educating their users, and an even worse job implementing effective systems that alert a user before their bill goes utterly apocalyptic.
I'm sure the folks on the Board would absolutely love to see new client functionality that allows customers to become aware of when they'd be giving the company _a lot_ of money. Mike, you know business folks, why even write an article like this? Of course they are going to screw over their customers, capitalism is about the bottom line, always has been, always will be. Is this really that surprising?
Well, since you can't pass laws that make people better drivers, and numerous studies pointed out by Techdirt actually show texting/talking does for most people influence driving behavior negatively (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100331/1727268821.shtml), why is there so much push back against this supposed law?
If anyone honestly thinks Oprah, PSAs, or some pledge that most people will effortlessly forget about in a month will actually resolve any problems, rethink human behavior. You can throw around buzzwords all you want - "we need to treat the problem, instead of the symptom" - the problem of bad driving will never be solved, and to suggest this is fairly disingenuous.
Forgetting the last sentence entirely, how can you call this a symptom of a larger problem? We already know you can't fix a bad driver, hence the problem then lends itself to the fact we are allowing people to text and yak while they drive. I'm all for using common sense, but most people don't have this handy feature, and if we need a law to jolt people in the right direction, then by all means. I'd rather rely on legislation than Oprah's feel-good pledge, because I can actually use legislation in court when I get t-boned at an intersection. See how that works?
"Except, uh, those movies all can be downloaded, and are downloaded... and people still go to theater, just like they 'still go to the night club' or to concerts, because of the social experience of going out. It's why some of the most successful movies are also the most downloaded."
Yes, box office revenues continue to increase, due to ticket prices, opening of additional theaters with much large capacities, and decent flicks. This is in parallel to the fact that movie downloads rights.
Did you ever stop to think that box office revenues would dramatically increase (MORE!) if ALL file sharing was stopped? Sure, Avatar did great at the box office, and I'm sure some people either downloaded it, and didn't see it in theater or vice versa. However, I'm sick and tired of these poor arguments (i.e. "file-sharing isn't killing the business, the business is booming!), because you have absolutely NO DATA to suggest that box office revenues WOULD NOT increase if all sharing was stopped.
It's just such a poor, one-sided argument that does not beat a simple test of, well what if it was the other way around.
All I have seen so far is an attempt to shame the people who say that these rights have no real a priori existence.
Whipping out buzzwords like a priori knowledge, I'd assume you'd understand that these rights arise through use of reason and intellect, not through experience (or a posteriori). One need not be forcefully silenced to know that they should have the right to speak their mind without fear of violent repercussions.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
You only have those rights because of where you were born and you only think others should have those rights because you were raised where you were.
I will let the women of these countries speak for themselves. Other interviews also illuminate the fact that they very much would enjoy additional freedoms and liberties of their own in their own nation: http://www.globalpolitician.com/22440-iran
Moreover, just the fact we are freely having this conversation is proof the system partly works. Of course nothing is perfect and we'll be deceived, I'd hope everyone knows that coming into the game.
In those countries, however, her rights would not be considered violated. Some people might hear about it and think it's morally wrong, but it's not in any way going against her rights.
Again, ask the little girl if what's being done to her is against her rights. Her human dignity might have another opinion as yours.
Your personal morals do not dictate the rights of you or those around you. Some people think drinking is morally wrong, other people still have the right to drink.
You're missing the point entirely. The rights we're discussing are no where in or near the realm of having the right to drink beer... We're talking about the right to not get shot for having this conversation, or the right to choose which God you worship (none for me thanks!), but you do realize WARS are being waged over which imaginary man in the sky has the REAL rules to live by. Not to mention the outright censorship of the internet that occurs on behalf of the Chinese government. Don't worry, once they catch wind we're having an honest conversation, no one will be reading this article in Beijing.
It just blows my mind how some people with such enormous freedoms and liberties can (and with a completely apathetic tone) make it seem as though life as sex slave in Thailand really isn't as bad as it's made to be. I mean, hey, their rights aren't being violated or anything. I guess that's just the way it is - when's the mall close?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
I understand where you are going with this, trust me. However, being in America (literally known as the freest place on Earth), and having access to the liberties which allow me to think in the way that I do, affords me the knowledge to know that ALL PEOPLE should enjoy the same liberties as I do.
Everyone should possess the liberty to exercise their inherent human rights (definition clarification for Dark Helmet!). One should always be able to speak their mind and not be afraid of violent repercussions. One should always have the liberty to choose their religion, and not have it forced upon them. One should always have the right to change/alter/dismantle a government if they don't approve of, or at least have their voice hear without being forcefully silenced. All of these things we take for granted ARE actually fantastic things that others should enjoy
NOW, that's not to say all countries need to adopt a democratic, capitalistic society where we can all go to McDonald's and shop at Wal-Mart on Sundays. I'm not saying that at all - all I'm saying is we are all born with certain rights, rights our forefathers put down (and then willfully denied to their slaves). Although these guys were severely hypocritical, they were on to something.
Huh? Natural law, by definition, is NOT a human construct.
--You had it in the second paragraph. What I meant was this: unless the concept was magically plucked from the sky, it was definitely created my man. Again, it's a non-issue and misunderstanding.
Correct. This is a fundamental difference in ethical theory/thinking. Both lines are valid but in such opposition as to be completely incongruous with the other.
--Agreed!
Oh well, that's what makes the world so much fun....
I understand completely, but respectfully disagree - and the disconnect is simply in what we each define as a "right". In our women-in-India example, I feel as though they do have the same rights that should be afforded to all humans (i.e. freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to choose one's government, basically all the goodies in the 1st Amendment sprinkled with some good ol' fashion common sense), but they simply don't have the liberty to exercise those rights. Let me explain using your quote:
A person's rights are subject to the laws they allow themselves to be governed by.
North Koreans are starved for contact to the outside world. Although the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is labeled as a democracy, we all know it's everything but - and more like it's run by a totalitarian dictator. These people have no way of overthrowing that government, meaning there is a very large difference between "allowing" yourself to be controlled by, or simply being forcefully oppressed into subjugation. Therefore, it stands to reason that rights are always yours, but often are not able to be willfully exercised, however they will always be there. It's more a fact of human dignity than anything else.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your original argument wasn't that rights were human contructs (which I absolutely agree with), but rather it's our ability (or disability) to _enforce_ them that makes them valid:
"The statement is that if you are unable to unwilling to have your right enforced, then you don't have that right."
Now, I partially agree with this, but not in the way we both want (at least I think). Woman in India surely don't "have" the same rights as woman in America, (my gf is currently teaching English to kids in Dharamsala, India, so I've heard a lot about this.), however, to me, that doesn't mean they don't in general have the same rights as other woman - they are just being infringed upon. This is NOT to say they don't exist. They may not be present or respected, but these woman do have the same rights as woman in the US or in any part of the world.
Than why are you telling Dark Helmet he's wrong on the island/rape senario?
This is a very good question, and I often struggle with this piece of Spinoza's philosophy as well. If nothing is good or bad, then who cares? Right? This gets us into Nietzsche's will to power argument. Basically, we can believe that everything means nothing (nihilism), and either 1) say screw it, and go out and loot and murder without regret (negative) or 2) take power into our own hands, and make life the way we want to, since we can do anything we want (positive). Really these are two very extremes, but stem from the same notion explained in nihilism.
I am not saying that since everything is neither good or bad, we shouldn't care. We absolutely should care. Spinoza was ALL FOR locking up criminals, even though his philosophy basically said none of this matters!!
I'll say this: if humans were not around, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and nothing (to us!) would matter all all. However, we are here, we are alive, and you better be damned sure that things matter to be, even when (in all reality) they will not matter in a thousand years. It really is all relative.
Therefore, although it neither right or wrong for the woman to get attacked on the desert island, humanity is born with consciousness, and therefore the inherent notion of personal rights, which regardless of whether they are right or wrong, EXIST!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
Personal attacks? My apologies, I'm merely trying (forcefully) to show you that rights do not exist on a whim, and do not have to be physical objects. My right to life does not exist because a majority decided so.
Also, natural law is a human construct (obviously!), which many have argued STILL falls into positive law. So again, we are at an impasse.
Interesting. My view of Kant's ethics is a long-winded, Germanic interpretation of the Golden Rule! However, in my heart of hearts I believe in Spinoza's Ethics: nothing is intrinsically good or bad, just the label we place on it. But these labels are very important!!
On the post: Do We Really Want To Criminalize Bad Jokes?
Re:
If it's made in the context of bombing an airport, yes. And it was, so they did. Good.
On the post: Century-Old Dictionary Error Shows That 'Professionally' Edited Reference Books Make Errors Too
"However, one thing that struck me was how the OED was basically its own version of Wikipedia at the time...Reading the chapters of the book about this part of the process made it sound very, very similar to Wikipedia in many ways."
This is like a young girl claiming her grandmother resembles her, when in fact its the other way around.
Nothing about the OED process mimics or highlights anything that Wikipedia has done. It's completely the other way around. These new-world, tech-savvy buzzwords like crowd-sourcing and mass collaboration have existed for centuries - nothing has changed but the medium.
Let's all take a step down from the high horse and remember people a lot smarter than us a long time ago created these processes which we all seemed to have rediscovered through technology.
On the post: Dumb Question Of The Day: Should Google Try To Prevent Terrorism?
I love speculation. You can say anything! Even when you have no idea what you're talking about.
On the post: Dumb Question Of The Day: Should Google Try To Prevent Terrorism?
On the post: Humble Indie Bundle Keeps Getting Better, Exceeding Expectations
Radiohead tried with this with their 'In Rainbows' album, and clinched a spot on the '101 Dumbest Business' moves:
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/fortune/0712/gallery.101_dumbest.fortune/59.html
If only we could hear a follow up about Wolfire in 3 years time, once all the buzz dies down, then we'll see how great of an idea this is.
On the post: Oh Look, Another Completely Ridiculous Wireless Broadband Bill
I'm sure the folks on the Board would absolutely love to see new client functionality that allows customers to become aware of when they'd be giving the company _a lot_ of money. Mike, you know business folks, why even write an article like this? Of course they are going to screw over their customers, capitalism is about the bottom line, always has been, always will be. Is this really that surprising?
On the post: Can Oprah Do What Driving-While-Yakking Laws Can't?
If anyone honestly thinks Oprah, PSAs, or some pledge that most people will effortlessly forget about in a month will actually resolve any problems, rethink human behavior. You can throw around buzzwords all you want - "we need to treat the problem, instead of the symptom" - the problem of bad driving will never be solved, and to suggest this is fairly disingenuous.
Forgetting the last sentence entirely, how can you call this a symptom of a larger problem? We already know you can't fix a bad driver, hence the problem then lends itself to the fact we are allowing people to text and yak while they drive. I'm all for using common sense, but most people don't have this handy feature, and if we need a law to jolt people in the right direction, then by all means. I'd rather rely on legislation than Oprah's feel-good pledge, because I can actually use legislation in court when I get t-boned at an intersection. See how that works?
On the post: Can Oprah Do What Driving-While-Yakking Laws Can't?
And I'm the crass one?
On the post: 50 Cent Says The Movie Industry Will Get New Laws Passed That Will Help The Music Industry
Re: Re:
hmmm .... and you have no data to say that box office revenues would increase if file sharing were to magically stop.
Correct, I don't - and neither do you. But last I checked, I'm not the one spouting this information off via a blog as if it's been proven solid.
On the post: 50 Cent Says The Movie Industry Will Get New Laws Passed That Will Help The Music Industry
Re: Re:
Do you have any evidence suggesting otherwise? That the industry would make drastically more money if file sharing wasn't present? Oh you don't, ok.
On the post: 50 Cent Says The Movie Industry Will Get New Laws Passed That Will Help The Music Industry
Yes, box office revenues continue to increase, due to ticket prices, opening of additional theaters with much large capacities, and decent flicks. This is in parallel to the fact that movie downloads rights.
Did you ever stop to think that box office revenues would dramatically increase (MORE!) if ALL file sharing was stopped? Sure, Avatar did great at the box office, and I'm sure some people either downloaded it, and didn't see it in theater or vice versa. However, I'm sick and tired of these poor arguments (i.e. "file-sharing isn't killing the business, the business is booming!), because you have absolutely NO DATA to suggest that box office revenues WOULD NOT increase if all sharing was stopped.
It's just such a poor, one-sided argument that does not beat a simple test of, well what if it was the other way around.
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Whipping out buzzwords like a priori knowledge, I'd assume you'd understand that these rights arise through use of reason and intellect, not through experience (or a posteriori). One need not be forcefully silenced to know that they should have the right to speak their mind without fear of violent repercussions.
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
I will let the women of these countries speak for themselves. Other interviews also illuminate the fact that they very much would enjoy additional freedoms and liberties of their own in their own nation: http://www.globalpolitician.com/22440-iran
Moreover, just the fact we are freely having this conversation is proof the system partly works. Of course nothing is perfect and we'll be deceived, I'd hope everyone knows that coming into the game.
In those countries, however, her rights would not be considered violated. Some people might hear about it and think it's morally wrong, but it's not in any way going against her rights.
Again, ask the little girl if what's being done to her is against her rights. Her human dignity might have another opinion as yours.
Your personal morals do not dictate the rights of you or those around you. Some people think drinking is morally wrong, other people still have the right to drink.
You're missing the point entirely. The rights we're discussing are no where in or near the realm of having the right to drink beer... We're talking about the right to not get shot for having this conversation, or the right to choose which God you worship (none for me thanks!), but you do realize WARS are being waged over which imaginary man in the sky has the REAL rules to live by. Not to mention the outright censorship of the internet that occurs on behalf of the Chinese government. Don't worry, once they catch wind we're having an honest conversation, no one will be reading this article in Beijing.
It just blows my mind how some people with such enormous freedoms and liberties can (and with a completely apathetic tone) make it seem as though life as sex slave in Thailand really isn't as bad as it's made to be. I mean, hey, their rights aren't being violated or anything. I guess that's just the way it is - when's the mall close?
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
Everyone should possess the liberty to exercise their inherent human rights (definition clarification for Dark Helmet!). One should always be able to speak their mind and not be afraid of violent repercussions. One should always have the liberty to choose their religion, and not have it forced upon them. One should always have the right to change/alter/dismantle a government if they don't approve of, or at least have their voice hear without being forcefully silenced. All of these things we take for granted ARE actually fantastic things that others should enjoy
NOW, that's not to say all countries need to adopt a democratic, capitalistic society where we can all go to McDonald's and shop at Wal-Mart on Sundays. I'm not saying that at all - all I'm saying is we are all born with certain rights, rights our forefathers put down (and then willfully denied to their slaves). Although these guys were severely hypocritical, they were on to something.
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
--You had it in the second paragraph. What I meant was this: unless the concept was magically plucked from the sky, it was definitely created my man. Again, it's a non-issue and misunderstanding.
Correct. This is a fundamental difference in ethical theory/thinking. Both lines are valid but in such opposition as to be completely incongruous with the other.
--Agreed!
Oh well, that's what makes the world so much fun....
--Definitely agree!
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
A person's rights are subject to the laws they allow themselves to be governed by.
North Koreans are starved for contact to the outside world. Although the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is labeled as a democracy, we all know it's everything but - and more like it's run by a totalitarian dictator. These people have no way of overthrowing that government, meaning there is a very large difference between "allowing" yourself to be controlled by, or simply being forcefully oppressed into subjugation. Therefore, it stands to reason that rights are always yours, but often are not able to be willfully exercised, however they will always be there. It's more a fact of human dignity than anything else.
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
"The statement is that if you are unable to unwilling to have your right enforced, then you don't have that right." Now, I partially agree with this, but not in the way we both want (at least I think). Woman in India surely don't "have" the same rights as woman in America, (my gf is currently teaching English to kids in Dharamsala, India, so I've heard a lot about this.), however, to me, that doesn't mean they don't in general have the same rights as other woman - they are just being infringed upon. This is NOT to say they don't exist. They may not be present or respected, but these woman do have the same rights as woman in the US or in any part of the world.
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ethics is FUN!
This is a very good question, and I often struggle with this piece of Spinoza's philosophy as well. If nothing is good or bad, then who cares? Right? This gets us into Nietzsche's will to power argument. Basically, we can believe that everything means nothing (nihilism), and either 1) say screw it, and go out and loot and murder without regret (negative) or 2) take power into our own hands, and make life the way we want to, since we can do anything we want (positive). Really these are two very extremes, but stem from the same notion explained in nihilism.
I am not saying that since everything is neither good or bad, we shouldn't care. We absolutely should care. Spinoza was ALL FOR locking up criminals, even though his philosophy basically said none of this matters!!
I'll say this: if humans were not around, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and nothing (to us!) would matter all all. However, we are here, we are alive, and you better be damned sure that things matter to be, even when (in all reality) they will not matter in a thousand years. It really is all relative.
Therefore, although it neither right or wrong for the woman to get attacked on the desert island, humanity is born with consciousness, and therefore the inherent notion of personal rights, which regardless of whether they are right or wrong, EXIST!
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
Also, natural law is a human construct (obviously!), which many have argued STILL falls into positive law. So again, we are at an impasse.
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ethics is FUN!
Next >>