virtual_void

Morals and ethics are similar but not the same, i would agree.

They suffer the same problem though in that morals and ethics do not have one universal standard. So something may be unethical to you but not to me but both be in the bounds of reason, or indeed the law.

You seem to accept that there is indeed ambiguity if you believe there to be a difference between a book pirated for a reason that helps someone, and a movie for entertainment in terms of piracy.

In addition, whilst you and i have access to libraries, this is very far from being common the world over.

Why then is it hyperbole? It’s just a simple example to show that piracy can in some cases harm no one and help someone. To wit: not all piracy is bad.

You claim that is unethical - which is all well and good, we do not share quite the same set of ethical values.

No. No you haven’t, at least not a singular unambiguous answer.

A lack of trust is not a reasonable reason to refuse to state a single verb or noun. Trust isn’t really a part of this - we are strangers on the internet.

I don’t believe that you are engaging with the discussion honestly because this is an extremely simple question to answer.

I believe this is because you have realised that you cannot defend the position you have taken.

It’s been an interesting discussion.

I was simply using the word feel as a synonym for the word believe. No injury intended.

You still have not answered the very simple question though, and i might be a bit slow off the mark but i don’t see it answered elsewhere in this thread.

Apologies, I wasn’t suggesting i was closing down the conversation. I am trying to find a specific thing in the social contract that you feel is violated. We agree it’s not stealing it seems.

Re trespass, that’s not what the specific tort you referred to means. A chattel is a moveable form of property. You’re talking about the colloquial version of trespass. Happy to talk about that conception of it.

Is the idea of trespass the specific thing you feel is being violated in the social contract? If not, what is?

No, that tort specifically relates to depriving someone of, otherwise damaging their property.

We've agreed it's not stealing. We've agreed that not all piracy is immoral, for some definition of immoral.

I think we can agree that this specific tort does not apply.

Which specific thing in the social contract, some simple verb such as "stealing" are you equating piracy with. Then we'll have something concrete to discuss I think.

You’re claiming that all piracy is immoral or breaches a social contract. Then you claim exceptions are ok. Thus not all piracy is immoral.

I am trying to get to specifics but you keep waving your hands about this stuff.

Then which specific thing in your conception of the social contact are you equating piracy with?

The post states that piracy isn’t stealing and you agree.

There must be some other thing in your mind that is equivalent.

Without a clear definition of morality that is considered universal you cannot make any claims about generality.

There are many examples of piracy where no one loses out yet someone does benefit.

Painting such a complex subject with such a broad brush makes it seem like we’re just talking about your particular feelings rather than something universal.

Which is fine, but you’re making claims of generality without presenting a cogent argument.

Are you are relying on that terminology because you believe piracy to actually be stealing? Depriving a person of something they already own.

And you are presuming that no pirates do by claiming that all piracy is immoral.

How do you stand on the idea that someone desperately poor, who cannot afford a text book that would be transformative to their life, pirates said book. Is that still immoral?

Your argument is based on the terms of a conceptual social contract which is ill defined and not universal.

You seem convinced that your system of values are the same set everyone else has. That doesn’t make for a useful argument.

There is no singular conception of The Social Contract, nor indeed of morality.

You’re making a point about how you feel about it without presenting an argument.

The discussion of harms or lack of harm from piracy has been raging for a long time. It’s not going to be solved by appealing to the idea of right and wrong. It’s not universal in this instance which is why the argument continues.

You would have a point if everyone agrees it is wrong but some people do it anyway. However, that is not the case.

I find it interesting that we always frame it as if we all perceive it in the same way.

I find in person to be draining, so the opposite of you.

I guess this is the core of the difficulty. Not everyone feels the same but very often we’re forced into someone else's ideal.

I agree with your main point - hybrid isn’t great when it is too prescriptive. Works well enough if each team is given the flexibility and latitude to decide what works best.

Totally agree re your first sentence. The second sentence is stating things as fact with regards to how you feel about relationships.

I don’t see how a persons feelings about how they think about relationships can be invalid.

You’re assuming your feelings about how other people make meaningful relationships are universal. It can be true for you yet untrue for others. It seems a bit much to state it as fact.

I don’t see people finding the fact infuriating. People are upset because they feel like people are asking them to come in to the office because someone else wants to socialise.

Enforced socialisation doesn’t seem reasonable any more than denying that some people like to socialise at work. Two sets of people, two different needs.

Wouldn’t it be exciting if it was working because someone / something had found it and started tinkering. Hackers, if you will.

It’s not. I can listen to audio from anywhere else except this site.

Just hooked my phone up to look at the console and noted that the resources are not being loaded.

I have a pihole running and checked that log and can see that fish.muted.io is being blocked due to it being listed in in one of the pihole default blocklists that it downloads.

That’s enough for me to give it a miss anyway.

Neat! I like it.

I get no audio on my iphone though for the interactive keyboard. Might just be my setup.

Is that true? I thought they could only devote devolved public expenditure to the nhs.

Even if they could raise income tax (3p i think?) to fund extra in the nhs that’s a drastically unlikely scenario.

Ultimately i think the nhs is Scotland is likely to be as underfunded as the nhs in England.

The funding is given to them by the uk gov. They are allowed to elect how they spend it. If the funding is insufficient then it’s not really fixing the problem.

He cites his sources (which seem reasonable), is making measurements and has written up objective results it seems.

Perhaps there are other articles less objective on that site but it doesn’t seem like this article should be dismissed out of hand.

Thanks. Will take your advice on both counts!

Interesting. We have a gas stove and a gas furnace. Furnace was changed a few years back and coincides with worse asthma symptoms for both me and my youngest son.

Anyone have any air quality sensor recommendations? Preferably one that i can easily extract data from for analysis.

N is not the only thing that matters here. It is important but if you’re disregarding results solely on that basis then it’s unfounded.

I noted from reading the paper that they based their sample size on a previous paper that shows the effect size for contractual muscle strength to be 0.6 and turned that in to a sample size estimate (in that paper). The same technique was used here and they nearly doubled the sample size from the previous study. It seems from a first reading that they have the statistical power to make the conclusions they do.

The study that shows 0.6 for effect size was a meta analysis that i do not have access to via my institution, but I’m curious as to why you think this paper is no better than anecdote. Perhaps some other part of their methods?

Their results show at the very least that it might be worth a bigger study (more N) but there’s nothing outrageously wrong with their methodology, is there?

I think that’s fine if en mass that was happening.

What causes corporations to sit up and take note is that when things are presented as a paid option with reasonable terms, people pay. However unreasonable terms (as we see with multiple streaming services, with adverts or minimal good content unless you pay again) increase piracy, not underconsumption.

What motivation would people have, when they feel they are being ripped off, and are presented with an alternative with no demonstrable downsides, to not consume?

People would happily pay but it’s impossible to do so in a reasonable or indeed fair way.

I think, from an emotional perspective re works i create, i feel the same.

The bit i feel unsure about is if it really removes my ability to generate revenue. To make that claim I’d have to be sure the people that have copied would have otherwise paid. I’m not at all confident that i could assert that.

I think the idea is that it’s problematic to pay for many different streaming services to get the content. Spotify got it right for music - one subscription, everything i want is there. Movies etc, not even close.

How is one to fight back? The traditional way worked for music. I’m happy to pay but I’m not going to be taken advantage of.

Regarding your last paragraph, could you expand a bit on why you believe that copying creative content does indeed remove something from the author?

I guess the usual argument is that a copy of something cannot, by definition be theft. The author still has the object in question.

Sometimes people counter by saying that a potential sale has been lost, but you can’t steal something that you didn’t have in the first place (the sale). The assumption that someone would have otherwise paid always seems to me a bit of a stretch.

I guess you have thought about this more than i have so I’m curious as to what you’ve come up with.

People are already trapped in a filter bubble. In general people do not seem open to ideas that do not confirm what they already believe. I don’t see how this differs.

I’m also not sure that i agree with your idea that the core principal of the internet should be in any way related to what information one might discover. The internet and the web provide means to disseminate and access information (amongst much else) but I don’t see how it should have anything to do with what you discover.