This perhaps sounds like a subtle "burden of proof" error, but the question can be even more misleading than that.
Let's turn it around: "When would you like to die?"
Immediately we're mired in assumptions. Even though the discussion is about the hypothetical possibility of "immortality," there are still going to be a lot of people who will say something about wanting to die when they're too feeble to live properly, when they're in too much pain, etc. These are the people who have forgotten that we're talking about a hypothetical situation.
Which may mean the hypothetical situation is just too poorly defined to have a fruitful discussion. Are we talking about some idiotically poor form of immortality like the Struldbrugs in "Gulliver's Travels," where you live forever but become progressively more feeble? Are we talking about a form of immortality where we retain a certain static amount of youth and continue living until a truck runs us over? Or do we mean a kind of nearly unimaginable physical immortality where almost nothing can damage or destroy us?
But despite this vagueness, the question of "When do you want to die?" retains some validity in itself. As far as we have ever seen, the only people who ever really want to die are those who are physically and/or mentally ill.
Healthy, happy people don't want to die. Now, if you could be permanently healthy and always have at least the potential for being happy, when would you want to die?
You don't know?
That's probably the only reasonable answer. If I could remain physically and mentally healthy for an indefinite period, I don't know how long I'd like to live either.
But I would damned well like to have the option of finding out through experience.
Is this a loaded question, begging the question, or is there a better logical fallacy label for it?
People don't use what doesn't yet exist, therefore it's not necessary.
For no good reason, this reminds me of an anecdote I once heard from science fiction author Barry B. Longyear. Longyear was talking about how a publisher had printed a relatively small run for one of his novels, something like 10,000 copies (I have the number wrong, but it will serve). Once these copies got into bookstores, Longyear soon noticed that they sold all 10,000 quickly. He called his publisher and pointed out that all 10,000 copies were sold. "Good thing we didn't print more," answered the publisher. "We only sold 10,000."
While I am very, very sympathetic to the idea of manned spaceflight, I wanted to point out that this statement about human vs. robot travel capabilities may be somewhat misleading.
Assuming that humans have sufficient food, water, atmosphere, the correct temperature range, and protection from ionizing radiation, they currently are more flexible and intelligent in their exploratory abilities than robots.
However, delivering human necessities across the Solar System is prohibitively expensive and technically difficult. Delivering one small robot across the Solar System is a vastly simpler problem.
So, in practical terms, the flexibility/cost ratio for human space exploration is still far too low, as compared with that same ratio for robots. I'm not saying that human space exploration is a bad idea -- I'm just saying that I'd like to see more of the Solar System explored while I'm still alive.
Is it any surprise that the grotesque -- and grotesquely wealthy -- monstrosities complaining about it don't understand this? They wouldn't know culture if they were standing in the middle of it. And they are.
Okay, I grant you, most laws these days are total bullshit. Even knowing how threatened Very Serious People get when you invoke the BS word, I would call the vast majority of state and federal laws enacted in the U.S. (at least) to be complete bullshit, designed only to give politicians an excuse to promote themselves. As someone who has spent some time in California over the last few months, I suspect this description is even more apt for any law passed in that state.
But in this case, what's the major problem? Okay, so maybe the distinction between personal and company social media accounts isn't realistic. How is that going to lead to more problems? Companies were suing for access to personal accounts previously, so I don't see this increasing. Is this law going to harm companies, such that their employees steal all the business from them? Again, I could see that happening already anyway.
Please explain the "unintended consequences" in terms of actual damage.
Obviously Dotcom's acceptance of the New Zealand PM's apology was not gracious, but then (a) when someone has totally screwed you over, you don't owe him a kiss on the ass, and (b)kissing the ass of people who want to stomp you like a bug isn't likely to accomplish anything beyond making you look like a particularly squishable bug.
Sure, Dotcom is pushing his luck with every move he makes, but what the hell? If the U.S. wants him, it will have him. If that clown Biden wants to make an offering to his pals in Hollywood of Dotcom's head on a pike, this is going to happen regardless of whether Dotcom bows, scrapes, cries, begs, or acts like the most innocent creature in the universe.
Dotcom probably sees no point in trying to making his situation better because he can't -- he's already been indicted, convicted, and sentenced in absentia, and we're just waiting to see how much time will pass before the FBI drags his hefty ass to prison.
I ended my cable television service (years ago) because more than 99% of what they offered was of no interest to me.
Why did I need dozens of sports channels? I have zero interest in sports.
Why did I need half a dozen worthless news channels (stretching the definition of "news" to include "Fox")? I get more detailed news from around the world online.
Why did I need so many channels of ancient tv reruns? If I ever had any interest in such shows, I already saw them. If I still have an interest, I'll just download videos and keep them as mementos.
What do I want? Information. I want answers to my questions. I want valid education. I want items that interest me and/or that broaden my horizons.
Cable television is dreck, and spoonfed dreck at that. To hell with it.
I agree that copyright and patents shouldn't be reformed -- they should be dumped entirely. Not only are they rationalized by inherently broken concepts like "intellectual property," they also happen to have risen from the greedy lies of self-serving middlemen. To use a legal metaphor (which I grant you is irrelevant here in any strictly legal sense), copyright and patents are fruit of the poison tree.
Considering what's been happening with patent litigation lately, I'd actually like to see the law go even beyond killing patents -- I'd like to see severe penalties for anyone attempting to use litigation or the threat thereof as part of his business model.
I have a difficult time becoming upset about this. Don't get me wrong -- I've been a big science fiction fan for the last five decades, and I've always found the Hugo Awards a relatively fun ceremony.
At the same time, I can't help equating most of the authors involved in this ceremony with the sort of kamikaze copyright maximalism we see so routinely in publishing and broadcasting.
While I'm sure there were any number of bright, understanding, non-maximalists in the audience (were you out there, Cory Doctorow?)I really don't believe anything as well established as the Hugos or the World Science Fiction Convention could take place without the approval of copyright scum. And it's always mildly amusing to watch the biter get bitten.
Isn't this the lesson every site should learn? Never cooperate with self-styled "authorities." It's like a jackal and a lamb discussing what should be for dinner -- in the best compromise, the lamb is still in trouble, and the jackal will always want more.
Copyright is a half-ass idea created by middlemen for the sake of enriching middlemen. It's a completely synthetic government-granted monopoly on a particular expression of an idea. Even at its worst, it was never meant to be as broad or as enduring as it is now.
But over the years, corporate players and their pitiful quisling artists have come to feel entitled to this legal scam, as though it were some sort of natural law.
Sure, competition drives innovation, just as it drives lower prices and better service. That's classic capitalism.
And corporations hate real capitalism.
Oh, they love the word "capitalism," as long as the parenthetical understanding is "the opposite of government regulation of trade," or something like that. Which sounds great, until you admit just how fragile are the capitalist markets that allow real competition. Without government regulation, competitive markets last for no more than the blink of an eye.
Apple wants to control its market. Samsung wants to control its market as well, though is considerably less far along in doing so. Neither want competition, and so neither want what is best for consumers.
These companies are not your friends -- they're your predators.
Studies -- and practical statistics of ticket and video sales -- strongly suggest that online file sharing is helping Hollywood, rather than hurting it.
So for the love of all that's good and decent, please stop sharing movie files online. The only way we're going to kill Hollywood dead as the dinosaur is to give it what its tiny little dinosaur brain wants -- strangling control of its own rotten products.
Let's prohibit livestock producers from dumping vast amounts of antibiotics into feed. Considering what this alone is doing to the effectiveness of antibiotics, these businesses could almost be accused of crimes against humanity.
Right -- I know it's not going to happen, any more than we're going to ween ourselves off non-renewable energy sources like oil or coal. Some men just want to watch the world burn out.
The TSA is an organization founded on an opportunistic power-grab, operating with demonstrably ineffective and always dehumanizing procedures, and run by unqualified incompetents at best and blatant criminals on average. I'm not exaggerating and I'm not making up stories -- if you haven't read the news, just Google it.
So how can this "Representative" (as Orwellian as that term seems in this case) get away with suggesting we need to expand the TSA's range, when we should've long since shut it down, arrested its current employees right up to the top level, and pursued criminal investigations against anyone who's ever been involved with it?
"Fortunately, there is no contradiction between file sharing and culture."
I must admit to being confused and more than a little nauseated by this statement. File-sharing is a very natural, organic expression of culture, like whistling or storytelling or doodling. It's astonishing to me that any amount of convoluted thinking could twist it into something even potentially at odds with culture.
Culture is what you and I share freely. Artists are the oddest sort of cultural symbiotes, and anyone who merely claims the right to some creation without actually creating it is nothing less than a cultural parasite.
Does Stockholm Syndrome make us love the Grim Reaper?
"Who wants to live forever, anyway?"
This perhaps sounds like a subtle "burden of proof" error, but the question can be even more misleading than that.
Let's turn it around: "When would you like to die?"
Immediately we're mired in assumptions. Even though the discussion is about the hypothetical possibility of "immortality," there are still going to be a lot of people who will say something about wanting to die when they're too feeble to live properly, when they're in too much pain, etc. These are the people who have forgotten that we're talking about a hypothetical situation.
Which may mean the hypothetical situation is just too poorly defined to have a fruitful discussion. Are we talking about some idiotically poor form of immortality like the Struldbrugs in "Gulliver's Travels," where you live forever but become progressively more feeble? Are we talking about a form of immortality where we retain a certain static amount of youth and continue living until a truck runs us over? Or do we mean a kind of nearly unimaginable physical immortality where almost nothing can damage or destroy us?
But despite this vagueness, the question of "When do you want to die?" retains some validity in itself. As far as we have ever seen, the only people who ever really want to die are those who are physically and/or mentally ill.
Healthy, happy people don't want to die. Now, if you could be permanently healthy and always have at least the potential for being happy, when would you want to die?
You don't know?
That's probably the only reasonable answer. If I could remain physically and mentally healthy for an indefinite period, I don't know how long I'd like to live either.
But I would damned well like to have the option of finding out through experience.
Legal action against 3D Systems?
Another good use for Kickstarter? Contributing to a legal defense fund against this company 3D Systems. I'd damned well contribute.
which logical fallacy is this?
Is this a loaded question, begging the question, or is there a better logical fallacy label for it?
People don't use what doesn't yet exist, therefore it's not necessary.
For no good reason, this reminds me of an anecdote I once heard from science fiction author Barry B. Longyear. Longyear was talking about how a publisher had printed a relatively small run for one of his novels, something like 10,000 copies (I have the number wrong, but it will serve). Once these copies got into bookstores, Longyear soon noticed that they sold all 10,000 quickly. He called his publisher and pointed out that all 10,000 copies were sold. "Good thing we didn't print more," answered the publisher. "We only sold 10,000."
Re: Re: always send robots first!
"Humans can travel where robots can't."
While I am very, very sympathetic to the idea of manned spaceflight, I wanted to point out that this statement about human vs. robot travel capabilities may be somewhat misleading.
Assuming that humans have sufficient food, water, atmosphere, the correct temperature range, and protection from ionizing radiation, they currently are more flexible and intelligent in their exploratory abilities than robots.
However, delivering human necessities across the Solar System is prohibitively expensive and technically difficult. Delivering one small robot across the Solar System is a vastly simpler problem.
So, in practical terms, the flexibility/cost ratio for human space exploration is still far too low, as compared with that same ratio for robots. I'm not saying that human space exploration is a bad idea -- I'm just saying that I'd like to see more of the Solar System explored while I'm still alive.
Sharing isn't theft...
Sharing is culture.
Is it any surprise that the grotesque -- and grotesquely wealthy -- monstrosities complaining about it don't understand this? They wouldn't know culture if they were standing in the middle of it. And they are.
and the big deal is...?
Okay, I grant you, most laws these days are total bullshit. Even knowing how threatened Very Serious People get when you invoke the BS word, I would call the vast majority of state and federal laws enacted in the U.S. (at least) to be complete bullshit, designed only to give politicians an excuse to promote themselves. As someone who has spent some time in California over the last few months, I suspect this description is even more apt for any law passed in that state.
But in this case, what's the major problem? Okay, so maybe the distinction between personal and company social media accounts isn't realistic. How is that going to lead to more problems? Companies were suing for access to personal accounts previously, so I don't see this increasing. Is this law going to harm companies, such that their employees steal all the business from them? Again, I could see that happening already anyway.
Please explain the "unintended consequences" in terms of actual damage.
Five bucks and graciousness will get you a coffee
Obviously Dotcom's acceptance of the New Zealand PM's apology was not gracious, but then (a) when someone has totally screwed you over, you don't owe him a kiss on the ass, and (b)kissing the ass of people who want to stomp you like a bug isn't likely to accomplish anything beyond making you look like a particularly squishable bug.
Sure, Dotcom is pushing his luck with every move he makes, but what the hell? If the U.S. wants him, it will have him. If that clown Biden wants to make an offering to his pals in Hollywood of Dotcom's head on a pike, this is going to happen regardless of whether Dotcom bows, scrapes, cries, begs, or acts like the most innocent creature in the universe.
Dotcom probably sees no point in trying to making his situation better because he can't -- he's already been indicted, convicted, and sentenced in absentia, and we're just waiting to see how much time will pass before the FBI drags his hefty ass to prison.
why did I "cut the cord?"
I ended my cable television service (years ago) because more than 99% of what they offered was of no interest to me.
Why did I need dozens of sports channels? I have zero interest in sports.
Why did I need half a dozen worthless news channels (stretching the definition of "news" to include "Fox")? I get more detailed news from around the world online.
Why did I need so many channels of ancient tv reruns? If I ever had any interest in such shows, I already saw them. If I still have an interest, I'll just download videos and keep them as mementos.
What do I want? Information. I want answers to my questions. I want valid education. I want items that interest me and/or that broaden my horizons.
Cable television is dreck, and spoonfed dreck at that. To hell with it.
No making a silk purse out of sow's ear
I agree that copyright and patents shouldn't be reformed -- they should be dumped entirely. Not only are they rationalized by inherently broken concepts like "intellectual property," they also happen to have risen from the greedy lies of self-serving middlemen. To use a legal metaphor (which I grant you is irrelevant here in any strictly legal sense), copyright and patents are fruit of the poison tree.
Considering what's been happening with patent litigation lately, I'd actually like to see the law go even beyond killing patents -- I'd like to see severe penalties for anyone attempting to use litigation or the threat thereof as part of his business model.
really?
I have a difficult time becoming upset about this. Don't get me wrong -- I've been a big science fiction fan for the last five decades, and I've always found the Hugo Awards a relatively fun ceremony.
At the same time, I can't help equating most of the authors involved in this ceremony with the sort of kamikaze copyright maximalism we see so routinely in publishing and broadcasting.
While I'm sure there were any number of bright, understanding, non-maximalists in the audience (were you out there, Cory Doctorow?)I really don't believe anything as well established as the Hugos or the World Science Fiction Convention could take place without the approval of copyright scum. And it's always mildly amusing to watch the biter get bitten.
Re:
A legally feasible, constitutional alternative to jury trials over patent infringement?
Not difficult at all: abolish the obscene, wealth-serving fiction known as "intellectual property."
Never Cooperate
Isn't this the lesson every site should learn? Never cooperate with self-styled "authorities." It's like a jackal and a lamb discussing what should be for dinner -- in the best compromise, the lamb is still in trouble, and the jackal will always want more.
Let's talk "entitlements"
Copyright has existed forever, right?
Wrong. Dead wrong. Stupidly wrong.
Copyright is a half-ass idea created by middlemen for the sake of enriching middlemen. It's a completely synthetic government-granted monopoly on a particular expression of an idea. Even at its worst, it was never meant to be as broad or as enduring as it is now.
But over the years, corporate players and their pitiful quisling artists have come to feel entitled to this legal scam, as though it were some sort of natural law.
This is only about monopoly
Sure, competition drives innovation, just as it drives lower prices and better service. That's classic capitalism.
And corporations hate real capitalism.
Oh, they love the word "capitalism," as long as the parenthetical understanding is "the opposite of government regulation of trade," or something like that. Which sounds great, until you admit just how fragile are the capitalist markets that allow real competition. Without government regulation, competitive markets last for no more than the blink of an eye.
Apple wants to control its market. Samsung wants to control its market as well, though is considerably less far along in doing so. Neither want competition, and so neither want what is best for consumers.
These companies are not your friends -- they're your predators.
Strangely enough, I too want movie "piracy" to end
Studies -- and practical statistics of ticket and video sales -- strongly suggest that online file sharing is helping Hollywood, rather than hurting it.
So for the love of all that's good and decent, please stop sharing movie files online. The only way we're going to kill Hollywood dead as the dinosaur is to give it what its tiny little dinosaur brain wants -- strangling control of its own rotten products.
Good riddance to these repulsive half-wits.
here's a good start
Let's prohibit livestock producers from dumping vast amounts of antibiotics into feed. Considering what this alone is doing to the effectiveness of antibiotics, these businesses could almost be accused of crimes against humanity.
Right -- I know it's not going to happen, any more than we're going to ween ourselves off non-renewable energy sources like oil or coal. Some men just want to watch the world burn out.
this is extremely disturbing
The TSA is an organization founded on an opportunistic power-grab, operating with demonstrably ineffective and always dehumanizing procedures, and run by unqualified incompetents at best and blatant criminals on average. I'm not exaggerating and I'm not making up stories -- if you haven't read the news, just Google it.
So how can this "Representative" (as Orwellian as that term seems in this case) get away with suggesting we need to expand the TSA's range, when we should've long since shut it down, arrested its current employees right up to the top level, and pursued criminal investigations against anyone who's ever been involved with it?
a case of black and white
"Fixing software patents" is a bit like "fixing cannibalism" -- the only meaningful solution is abolition.
???
"Fortunately, there is no contradiction between file sharing and culture."
I must admit to being confused and more than a little nauseated by this statement. File-sharing is a very natural, organic expression of culture, like whistling or storytelling or doodling. It's astonishing to me that any amount of convoluted thinking could twist it into something even potentially at odds with culture.
Culture is what you and I share freely. Artists are the oddest sort of cultural symbiotes, and anyone who merely claims the right to some creation without actually creating it is nothing less than a cultural parasite.
rocking the ship of state
I wonder how much "turbulence" would be required to dislodge Rep. Mike Rogers from Congress.
Let's find out, shall we?