Re: [luv-talk] torrent software
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 8/04/2015 12:08 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
At the meeting there was a mention of the fact that we now have a legal precedent for film companies to force ISPs to divulge the names of customers who might have torrented movies. This was bound to catch up with iiNet [and other] users....
Is there any good anonymous peer to peer software? Something that uses tor hidden services for all communications? Much better to just keep to legal and proper downloads, don't you think?
Well of course that goes without saying ! the very idea of owning movies which I haven't paid for; or even converting DVD's so they are playable outside of brain-dead DVD players, (which mostly also seem incapable of playing them); is abhorrent to my higher moral self.! I even believe there are some who have copies of that other OS what was it called .....; anyway they have not paid for it apparently. There seems to exist a whole category of software ..shareware ? where such behaviour is rife. This software philosophy, what's it called 'open-source' ?; why it's just encourages such an attitude ! Oh Andrew; how I concur with you regarding the wickedness of the world ! regards Rohan McLeod
On 8/04/2015 9:54 AM, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Much better to just keep to legal and proper downloads, don't you think?
Well of course that goes without saying !
;-) Yes, especially when Russell says all of us IT types have plenty of income.... quite a generalization, but that's what I think his view is.
the very idea of owning movies which I haven't paid for; or even converting DVD's so they are playable outside of brain-dead DVD players, (which mostly also seem incapable of playing them); is abhorrent to my higher moral self.!
The whole issue is a minefield. I hate it when I buy a DVD these days and there isn't even 2.1 sound option or plain old stereo. If you have 5.1 you are golden, but otherwise the DVD needs to be played at high sound levels due to not having a good range of audio options to choose from. In cases like this, aside from DMCA issues, I think it *should* be fair to download a normal stereo version of something you own or to re-encode as needed to be able to play the DVD. When it comes to Bluray, there are other problems. A disc may work fine one day and then won't work again, ever, unless the player can get an update from the Internet to make sure it is /legal/ .... that is horrid too. There is so much wrong with DMCA, but when it comes to video content from the Internet in legal forms, well there is plenty available without needing to pirate anything.
I even believe there are some who have copies of that other OS what was it called .....; anyway they have not paid for it apparently.
My own view is that Microsoft has traditionally priced it's OS too high, but when you think about all the years of update support (patching), then the price seems to be reasonable. But using pirated Windows is not right, it is far more risky than using a proper legitimate version and not worth the risk. Mark Russinavich has even mentioned that MS may open source Windows! They are a new business these days. It may never happen, but it has been discussed and it just might.
There seems to exist a whole category of software ..shareware ? where such behaviour is rife.
Yes, that doesn't make it right.
This software philosophy, what's it called 'open-source' ?; why it's just encourages such an attitude !
I think that Microsoft should re-enable full support for XP, but with a reasonable once off new payment, or a very low subscription cost. Until such time as Windows goes open source, if it ever does, there will always be issues of trust -- particularly with how easily they bend over backwards for those three letter organizations, such as with Skype. I do not use Skype for all sorts of reasons, not least of which these days, is that it is MS controlled and it has been known to follow private links in chat sessions ... effectively watching everything you type and with current day speech recognition capabilities, well everything you say too.
Oh Andrew; how I concur with you regarding the wickedness of the world !
Two [or 10 for that matter] wrongs do not make a right. I would consider myself to be a bit of a libertarian, we have far too much regulation and government control over people. Give us a fair price for almost anything and we'll happily pay it, if we can afford it. Don't squash us with DMCA or other abhorrent measures. Personally, for me, there is so much free and legal content available that I have no interest in seeking illegal content, regardless of any other consideration. Cheers A.
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 07:01:36 AM Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 8/04/2015 9:54 AM, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Much better to just keep to legal and proper downloads, don't you think?
Well of course that goes without saying !
;-)
Yes, especially when Russell says all of us IT types have plenty of income.... quite a generalization, but that's what I think his view is.
http://tinyurl.com/mwrcfzg The above links to the second result from a google search for "average it salary". http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/do-you-consider-yourself-a-struggling- comfortable-or-rich-australian/story-e6frfmcr-1226910189131 The above article suggests that the average full-time wage is $74,724 before tax. This makes "IT types" possibly slightly better off than average. However the real issue is the median. I think that the median IT worker would earn significantly more than the median employee in Australia. I think that "IT types" have "plenty of money" where that is defined as owning a decent house and a non-prestige car that's in reasonable condition. If "plenty of money" is defined as a house in Toorak and a Mercedes then few people on this list would qualify.
the very idea of owning movies which I haven't paid for; or even converting DVD's so they are playable outside of brain-dead DVD players, (which mostly also seem incapable of playing them); is abhorrent to my higher moral self.!
The whole issue is a minefield. I hate it when I buy a DVD these days and there isn't even 2.1 sound option or plain old stereo. If you have 5.1 you are golden, but otherwise the DVD needs to be played at high sound levels due to not having a good range of audio options to choose from. In cases like this, aside from DMCA issues, I think it *should* be fair to download a normal stereo version of something you own or to re-encode as needed to be able to play the DVD.
Also you have all those annoying anti-piracy messages at the start which you can't fast-forward. A real benefit of piracy is avoiding the annoying anti- piracy messages!
When it comes to Bluray, there are other problems. A disc may work fine one day and then won't work again, ever, unless the player can get an update from the Internet to make sure it is /legal/ .... that is horrid too.
Well if you can't even own it then why bother buying it?
There is so much wrong with DMCA, but when it comes to video content from the Internet in legal forms, well there is plenty available without needing to pirate anything.
Youtube has more video than you could ever watch. Also there are a variety of services with free video like blip.tv. I've been meaning to blog about the free video services but I haven't had enough time to watch enough video.
I even believe there are some who have copies of that other OS what was it called .....; anyway they have not paid for it apparently.
My own view is that Microsoft has traditionally priced it's OS too high, but when you think about all the years of update support (patching), then the price seems to be reasonable. But using pirated Windows is not right, it is far more risky than using a proper legitimate version and not worth the risk.
One of the payment options for Office that I've seen was about $10 per month. Presumably they were planning on getting about the same through regular sales. $10 per month would cover the cost of ongoing patching after about 20,000 sales.
Mark Russinavich has even mentioned that MS may open source Windows! They are a new business these days. It may never happen, but it has been discussed and it just might.
Why would they do that when they can keep taxing us? Every Linux system I have ever purchased new came with a Windows license. Why would MS want to open source Windows when they can keep making me pay for software I never use?
This software philosophy, what's it called 'open-source' ?; why it's just encourages such an attitude !
I think that Microsoft should re-enable full support for XP, but with a reasonable once off new payment, or a very low subscription cost.
Ending XP support doesn't seem like a smart business decision on it's own as people will keep paying for it. But given that people who are forced to stop using XP just pay for a newer version of Windows it makes sense.
I would consider myself to be a bit of a libertarian, we have far too much regulation and government control over people.
Libertarians aren't actually interested in less government control. Most of the policies that libertarians want REQUIRE a significant amount of government control. It's impossible to have the degree of inequality that they have in the US without having some sort of police state. What libertarians want is less government control of rich people, that includes allowing the Music And Film Industry Association of America to control the way we use computers.
Give us a fair price for almost anything and we'll happily pay it, if we can afford it. Don't squash us with DMCA or other abhorrent measures.
We need to show them that the DMCA can't work. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 8/04/2015 6:27 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
I think that "IT types" have "plenty of money" where that is defined as owning a decent house and a non-prestige car that's in reasonable condition. If "plenty of money" is defined as a house in Toorak and a Mercedes then few people on this list would qualify.
Still a bit broad. I can't say I ever got to that point. IT worker with some management role perhaps, sure. Non management, I dunno...
Also you have all those annoying anti-piracy messages at the start which you can't fast-forward. A real benefit of piracy is avoiding the annoying anti- piracy messages! So true, was cursing some of those last night while watching a DVD (which we legitimately own). What I would like to see media companies do is:
- Make content available at a reasonable price in a reasonable time frame. Movie and TV are such a global phenomenon that delaying releases in different areas encourages piracy as people outside the initial release area try and keep up with the rest of the world - Game of Thrones being a classic example (I don't watch this myself, but it is a commonly cited example). Some networks are waking up and scheduling global releases of TV episodes within 24 hours of initial screening. And on the ABC, we have had simulcast releases of major Dr Who episodes with the UK, for those who want to get up early on a Sunday morning. :) - Speaking of TV, stop treating your viewers like crap with not sticking to the schedule, and the way ads are handled now, as well as putting ads into credits of shows and movies. Keep that up, and we might as well close down all TV stations and turn the spectrum over to broadband, since people will move to online services instead. As for Foxtel, it's a poor value proposition, paying for a lot of crap for a couple of channels of interest. - Cinema versus DVD/Blu-Ray release is an ongoing source of frustration. My partner doesn't handle cinemas well, so we're effectively forced to wait months to see major movies - i.e. when the disc version comes out. The bigger the movie, the longer the waitI don't know about others, but I personally see cinema and home viewing as complimentary experiences. On the rare occasions I do get to the cinema, it's a bit of a special or social event, whereas home viewing is a time to unwind and take in the movie. Having seen the DVD would not stop me making a social trip to the cinema to see the same movie at a later date. - DRM is an ongoing bugbear. Note to the media conglomerates - once you removed DRM from music, I started buying tracks online. Now please lower the cost of Australian releases to match overseas releases. And please remove DRM from movies as well, I'm happy to buy unencumbered copies. ebooks still have this scourge, though the convenience does mean I purchase the occasional ebook. - Speaking of ebooks, it is annoying that of a series, only some of the ebooks can be purchased in Australia, others can't. What on earth are the publishers doing? Another example of treating customers like shit. I've got a few incomplete sets, or sets that are part electronic and part paperback. - And many interesting TV series or movies never even make it to Australia. We have Google, Facebook and instant messaging, we know shows are out there. Why not make them available to us?
When it comes to Bluray, there are other problems. A disc may work fine one day and then won't work again, ever, unless the player can get an update from the Internet to make sure it is /legal/ .... that is horrid too. Well if you can't even own it then why bother buying it?
There is so much wrong with DMCA, but when it comes to video content from the Internet in legal forms, well there is plenty available without needing to pirate anything. Youtube has more video than you could ever watch. Also there are a variety of services with free video like blip.tv. I've been meaning to blog about the free video services but I haven't had enough time to watch enough video.
I even believe there are some who have copies of that other OS what was it called .....; anyway they have not paid for it apparently. My own view is that Microsoft has traditionally priced it's OS too high, but when you think about all the years of update support (patching), then the price seems to be reasonable. But using pirated Windows is not right, it is far more risky than using a proper legitimate version and not worth the risk. One of the payment options for Office that I've seen was about $10 per month. Presumably they were planning on getting about the same through regular sales. $10 per month would cover the cost of ongoing patching after about 20,000 sales.
Mark Russinavich has even mentioned that MS may open source Windows! They are a new business these days. It may never happen, but it has been discussed and it just might. Why would they do that when they can keep taxing us? Every Linux system I have ever purchased new came with a Windows license. Why would MS want to open source Windows when they can keep making me pay for software I never use?
This software philosophy, what's it called 'open-source' ?; why it's just encourages such an attitude ! I think that Microsoft should re-enable full support for XP, but with a reasonable once off new payment, or a very low subscription cost. Ending XP support doesn't seem like a smart business decision on it's own as people will keep paying for it. But given that people who are forced to stop using XP just pay for a newer version of Windows it makes sense.
I would consider myself to be a bit of a libertarian, we have far too much regulation and government control over people. Libertarians aren't actually interested in less government control. Most of the policies that libertarians want REQUIRE a significant amount of government control. It's impossible to have the degree of inequality that they have in the US without having some sort of police state.
What libertarians want is less government control of rich people, that includes allowing the Music And Film Industry Association of America to control the way we use computers.
Give us a fair price for almost anything and we'll happily pay it, if we can afford it. Don't squash us with DMCA or other abhorrent measures.
We need to show them that the DMCA can't work.
-- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 at 09:25 Tony Langdon <vk3jed@gmail.com> wrote:
- Speaking of TV, stop treating your viewers like crap with not sticking to the schedule, and the way ads are handled now, as well as putting ads into credits of shows and movies. Keep that up, and we might as well close down all TV stations and turn the spectrum over to broadband, since people will move to online services instead. As for Foxtel, it's a poor value proposition, paying for a lot of crap for a couple of channels of interest.
Not to mention other bad practises that seem to be getting more and more common, such as distracting advertisements on top of the TV show being broadcast, cutting the show (e.g. when somebody is still talking) to go to ads, racing through credits at end, or worse not even showing the credits at the end - you suddenly find the next program has started and didn't realize the previous one had ended. I am kind of getting sick of TV (which might actually be a good thing... <grin>) Yes, after watching old episodes on Dr Who (I watched on DVD so not a problem), sometimes the credits can be rather interesting. Such as when two distinct characters are played by the one actor < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Orchid_(Doctor_Who)> (They seem to do a good job of this for a 1982 production, e.g. in one scene makes it look like both characters are shaking hands with each other). Or when they deliberately disguise the name of a well known actor to try and keep the character's well known identity a secret ("Kalid" played by "Leon Ny Taiy" in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-Flight> was actually The Master in disguise played by Anthony Ainley)
On 9/04/2015 2:20 PM, Brian May wrote:
Not to mention other bad practises that seem to be getting more and more common, such as distracting advertisements on top of the TV show being broadcast, cutting the show (e.g. when somebody is still talking) to go to ads, racing through credits at end, or worse not even showing the credits at the end - you suddenly find the next program has started and didn't realize the previous one had ended. Yep, as I said, they need to stop treating viewers like crap.
I am kind of getting sick of TV (which might actually be a good thing... <grin>) ;)
Yes, after watching old episodes on Dr Who (I watched on DVD so not a problem), sometimes the credits can be rather interesting. Such as when two distinct characters are played by the one actor <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Orchid_(Doctor_Who) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Orchid_%28Doctor_Who%29>> (They seem to do a good job of this for a 1982 production, e.g. in one scene makes it look like both characters are shaking hands with each other). I've been known to look through credits, when seeing someone who looks "familiar", and trying to answer the question "Was that .... playing that part?".
-- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
Hi Tony, 1. [Tony] Great to hear someone else annoyed with TV practice not heard from you in a while... are you able to access VK3RGL on 2M? 2. [anyone] I am in the process of fixing an email problem for a friend - bigpond.com address works fine on Thunderbird but balks on Live Mail on WIN 7. I created as near as I can an identical situation on a WIN 7 PC at my home and get the same issue. There are heaps of comments on help servers but no particular answer - any clues... 3. [anyone] In replying to your email - here with Thunderbird - I see on incoming email your signature but on replying (like now as I type) the signature is not displayed. I have Thunderbird 31.4.0. 73 de VK3KMJ a.k.a. Mike (H) On 10/04/15 08:43, Tony Langdon wrote:
On 9/04/2015 2:20 PM, Brian May wrote:
Not to mention other bad practises that seem to be getting more and more common, such as distracting advertisements on top of the TV show being broadcast, cutting the show (e.g. when somebody is still talking) to go to ads, racing through credits at end, or worse not even showing the credits at the end - you suddenly find the next program has started and didn't realize the previous one had ended. Yep, as I said, they need to stop treating viewers like crap.
I am kind of getting sick of TV (which might actually be a good thing... <grin>) ;)
Yes, after watching old episodes on Dr Who (I watched on DVD so not a problem), sometimes the credits can be rather interesting. Such as when two distinct characters are played by the one actor <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Orchid_(Doctor_Who) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Orchid_%28Doctor_Who%29>> (They seem to do a good job of this for a 1982 production, e.g. in one scene makes it look like both characters are shaking hands with each other). I've been known to look through credits, when seeing someone who looks "familiar", and trying to answer the question "Was that .... playing that part?".
On 10/04/2015 10:09 AM, Mike Hewitt wrote:
Hi Tony, 1. [Tony] Great to hear someone else annoyed with TV practice Yeah, they treat us like shit and wonder why people download pirated copies of shows. Not exactly rocket science. Mind you, the catch up services of the commercial channels are also crap. Compared to Netflix, chalk and cheese in terms of performance and useability. ABC iView is quite good though. not heard from you in a while... are you able to access VK3RGL on 2M? No, there's this thing called the Great Dividing Range in the way. ;) Whereabouts are you?
2. [anyone] I am in the process of fixing an email problem for a friend - bigpond.com address works fine on Thunderbird but balks on Live Mail on WIN 7. I created as near as I can an identical situation on a WIN 7 PC at my home and get the same issue. There are heaps of comments on help servers but no particular answer - any clues... Ditch the bigpond address? ;) My experience with Optus email hasn't been that good in the past. :)
3. [anyone] In replying to your email - here with Thunderbird - I see on incoming email your signature but on replying (like now as I type) the signature is not displayed. I have Thunderbird 31.4.0. FYI, I use Thunderbird myself (on Windows ATM). I don't normally reply to myself, so I can't comment there. ;)
-- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
Tony, Altona Meadows=QTH , just had a QSO on a handheld with a couple of guys in Geelong. The bigpond address so far has been little problem - most of the issues I encounter are with the PC end - client settings ( due to abiguity ). Ifound a web page last night which tells the settings of a particular email address on bigpond. Customer service had seemed to indicate that I could use POP3 or IMAP but that page says the particular email is configured for IMAP. How do you get to edit the email into pieces and send it with the vertical lines etc ?? Just started getting into Scala and Clojure - went to a great talk on the latter last night... Mike H On 10/04/15 10:55, Tony Langdon wrote:
On 10/04/2015 10:09 AM, Mike Hewitt wrote:
Hi Tony, 1. [Tony] Great to hear someone else annoyed with TV practice Yeah, they treat us like shit and wonder why people download pirated copies of shows. Not exactly rocket science. Mind you, the catch up services of the commercial channels are also crap. Compared to Netflix, chalk and cheese in terms of performance and useability. ABC iView is quite good though. not heard from you in a while... are you able to access VK3RGL on 2M? No, there's this thing called the Great Dividing Range in the way. ;) Whereabouts are you?
2. [anyone] I am in the process of fixing an email problem for a friend - bigpond.com address works fine on Thunderbird but balks on Live Mail on WIN 7. I created as near as I can an identical situation on a WIN 7 PC at my home and get the same issue. There are heaps of comments on help servers but no particular answer - any clues... Ditch the bigpond address? ;) My experience with Optus email hasn't been that good in the past. :)
3. [anyone] In replying to your email - here with Thunderbird - I see on incoming email your signature but on replying (like now as I type) the signature is not displayed. I have Thunderbird 31.4.0. FYI, I use Thunderbird myself (on Windows ATM). I don't normally reply to myself, so I can't comment there. ;)
On 10/04/2015 11:48 AM, Mike Hewitt wrote:
Tony, Altona Meadows=QTH , just had a QSO on a handheld with a couple of guys in Geelong. AHH OK, cool. I used to live down that way, before escaping the big smoke. ;) Best thing I ever did. :) Only repeaters we'd be able to use (without Internet assistance) would be the VK3RMM pair. :)
The bigpond address so far has been little problem - most of the issues I encounter are with the PC end - client settings ( due to abiguity ). Ifound a web page last night which tells the settings of a particular email address on bigpond. Customer service had seemed to indicate that I could use POP3 or IMAP but that page says the particular email is configured for IMAP. Hmm, all those tricky little quirks. Most accounts I've encountered allow POP or IMAP, though I use IMAP where I can.
How do you get to edit the email into pieces and send it with the vertical lines etc ?? Edit it! (yes, it's that simple! :) ). I may have tweaked the quoting style a little, but that would have been so long ago that I can't recall.
Just started getting into Scala and Clojure - went to a great talk on the latter last night... Can't say I know either of those.
-- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:48:27AM +1000, Mike Hewitt wrote:
How do you get to edit the email into pieces
by moving the cursor into the section of quoted text, inserting a few empty lines and starting to type, remembering to delete all excess quoted material when you've finished replying to anything you want to reply to. this style of quoting (sometimes called interleaved or inline replying) is considered to be correct and polite. top-posting or, worse, bottom-posting is considered both rude and lazy. as is failing to delete excess quoted text. for further info, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style for a quick and obvious illustration of what's wrong with both top and bottom posting, see: http://blog.nfllab.com/archives/6-Top-posting-considered-harmful.html
and send it with the vertical lines etc ??
i have no idea what you mean by "send it with vertical lines etc" craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
On 10/04/2015 12:20 PM, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:48:27AM +1000, Mike Hewitt wrote:
How do you get to edit the email into pieces by moving the cursor into the section of quoted text, inserting a few empty lines and starting to type, remembering to delete all excess quoted material when you've finished replying to anything you want to reply to. this style of quoting (sometimes called interleaved or inline replying) is considered to be correct and polite. top-posting or, worse, bottom-posting is considered both rude and lazy. as is failing to delete excess quoted text. I'm pretty old school too, having been on the Net since 1994 and on BBSs for a number of years before that, so I bring the better habits (I hope) of that era with me. :) Sadly, the uality of user interfaces leaves a bit to be desired. Text mode editors are still the best for formatting email. GUI editors take a certain degree of "beating into submission". Thunderbird isn't too bad, though you have to make sure you've cleared some blank lines before manipulating blocks of text (or you'll screw up formatting). Outlook is, well, 'nuff said, though the worst of all are the mobile clients, where the interface makes it hard to do anything but top post.
-- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
Quoting Tony Langdon (vk3jed@gmail.com):
Outlook is, well, 'nuff said...
Please note the following entries on http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Mail (each being a link): Quoting in Outlook - Utility to fix MS-Outlook's broken quoting style Quoting in Outlook - Set of VBScript macros to do proper quoting and add other nice enhancements Quoting in OE - Utility to fix MS-Outlook Express's broken quoting style Quoting in WLM - Utility to fix MS Windows Live Mail's broken quoting style -- Cheers, I'm ashamed at how often I use a thesaurus. I mean bashful. Rick Moen Embarrassed! Wait--humiliated. Repentant. Chagrined! Sh*t! rick@linuxmafia.com -- @cinemasins McQ! (4x80)
Hi, On 10/04/2015 2:33 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Tony Langdon (vk3jed@gmail.com):
Outlook is, well, 'nuff said...
Yes.
Please note the following entries on http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Mail (each being a link):
Quoting in Outlook - Utility to fix MS-Outlook's broken quoting style
Outlook .... Look Out is a more appropriate name, but sadly too many people seem to love it anyway. :(
Quoting in Outlook - Set of VBScript macros to do proper quoting and add other nice enhancements Quoting in OE - Utility to fix MS-Outlook Express's broken quoting style
I used to use QuoteFix with OE, but I believe the person whom looked after it had died. Using WLM, which is sort of an incarnation of OE, well it was a bad one. I loved OE, but now use Thunderbird. Anyone using OE is going to be running XP, and they shouldn't be running XP.... so when the MUA reports as OE, I know it's an email from someone using XP or older.... In TB with plain text replies (best with email lists), the formatting is fine with > symbols. If we reply using HTML, then it gets messy, but some people prefer HTML and in some situations it is actually preferable.
Quoting in WLM - Utility to fix MS Windows Live Mail's broken quoting style
Funny 404 page? Cheers A.
On 9/02/2016 6:42 PM, Andrew McGlashan via luv-talk wrote:
Hi,
On 10/04/2015 2:33 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Tony Langdon (vk3jed@gmail.com):
Outlook is, well, 'nuff said...
Yes.
:)
Please note the following entries on http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Mail (each being a link):
Quoting in Outlook - Utility to fix MS-Outlook's broken quoting style
Outlook .... Look Out is a more appropriate name, but sadly too many people seem to love it anyway. :(
Outlook does have some useful features in corporate settings. When I used to use it to post to email lists, I managed to beat it into (mostly) submission, at least for plain text emails.
I loved OE, but now use Thunderbird.
While I liked some features of Outlook, I never liked OE at all. I used to use Eudora, but have switched to Thunderbird, which I like better. Took the opportunity to change my email to IMAP, which has made things easier with the multitude of devices I might access email with these days. :)
Anyone using OE is going to be running XP, and they shouldn't be running XP.... so when the MUA reports as OE, I know it's an email from someone using XP or older....
Yep.
In TB with plain text replies (best with email lists), the formatting is fine with > symbols. If we reply using HTML, then it gets messy, but some people prefer HTML and in some situations it is actually preferable.
HTML email does have its uses, though for most purposes, plain text suffices. -- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
Tony Langdon via luv-talk <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
Outlook does have some useful features in corporate settings. When I used to use it to post to email lists, I managed to beat it into (mostly) submission, at least for plain text emails.
I am in a work environment that is heavily invested in it. The problem is that if the original message is in HTML, the reply is automatically also in HTML and the configuration option that prefixes each line with a > character doesn't take effect. Is there a straightforward solution to this? Switching the message to plain text after issuing the "reply" command doesn't help.
I loved OE, but now use Thunderbird.
While I liked some features of Outlook, I never liked OE at all. I used to use Eudora, but have switched to Thunderbird, which I like better.
My favourite remains Mutt and I also appreciate the Emacs mail user agents. Outlook is firmly part of the Microsoft tradition: large, complex, monolithic, a bug rate to match the impressive feature list, and crashes too often... but the features are nice and the integration of mail and calendar is very good. The keyboard commands are fairly comprehensive - I can't complain that my efficiency is reduced by a lack of keyboard operations (unlike Apple Mail, which I also use). Actually, Microsoft are very good at providing keyboard bindings for their graphical user interfaces - significantly superior to GNOME or Mozilla, disappointingly enough. Nothing is better for keyboard access than the UNIX text environment, including Emacs and Vi, the shell, etc. I'm using this environment quite extensively, with Pandoc's Markdown as my primary document format at the moment, and Git for revision control.
On 11/02/2016 12:27 AM, Jason White via luv-talk wrote:
I am in a work environment that is heavily invested in it. The problem is that if the original message is in HTML, the reply is automatically also in HTML and the configuration option that prefixes each line with a > character doesn't take effect. Is there a straightforward solution to this? Switching the message to plain text after issuing the "reply" command doesn't help.
True, HTML really screws things up with Outlook. I used to work in an Outlook/Exchange environment, so I know what you're talking about.
Outlook is firmly part of the Microsoft tradition: large, complex, monolithic, a bug rate to match the impressive feature list, and crashes too often... but the features are nice and the integration of mail and calendar is very good. The keyboard commands are fairly comprehensive - I can't complain that my efficiency is reduced by a lack of keyboard operations (unlike Apple Mail, which I also use). Actually, Microsoft are very good at providing keyboard bindings for their graphical user interfaces - significantly superior to GNOME or Mozilla, disappointingly enough.
Yes, Microsoft have always been good at providing keyboard bindings for their OSs and applications.
Nothing is better for keyboard access than the UNIX text environment, including Emacs and Vi, the shell, etc. I'm using this environment quite extensively, with Pandoc's Markdown as my primary document format at the moment, and Git for revision control.
True, UNIX shells are best for keyboard use. I do have some requirements for mail interfaces that do favour well written graphical clients, though some text mode programs do work well for me. It's hard to quantify, and has a lot to do with how well the design of the software lines up with my internal intuitive logic. vi and Emacs haven't lined up particularly well (vi has been the slightly better of those two for me). I trued mutt and found similar issues where it didn't mesh well in a couple of key ways with how I work. I need something that either just "makes sense" (i.e. I can drive much of it without having to RTFM ;) ), or uses ancient commands that became ingrained when I had more time and more time in front of the editors (e.g. those ancient Wordstar/Borland editor commands). -- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
Jason White via luv-talk wrote:
Actually, Microsoft are very good at providing keyboard bindings for their graphical user interfaces - significantly superior to GNOME or Mozilla, disappointingly enough.
Urgh, there used to be this: https://developer.gnome.org/gtk3/stable/GtkSettings.html#GtkSettings--gtk-ca... ...but they removed it in GTK3.9.8, and it doesn't list any alternative. Can't see one in NEWS, either. Sigh.
Trent W. Buck wrote:
Jason White via luv-talk wrote:
Actually, Microsoft are very good at providing keyboard bindings for their graphical user interfaces - significantly superior to GNOME or Mozilla, disappointingly enough.
Urgh, there used to be this: https://developer.gnome.org/gtk3/stable/GtkSettings.html#GtkSettings--gtk-ca...
...but they removed it in GTK3.9.8, and it doesn't list any alternative. Can't see one in NEWS, either. Sigh.
PS: I looked at /usr/share/themes/Emacs/ to see how that worked in GTK3, and it looks like you use @binding-set pretend CSS: https://developer.gnome.org/gtk3/stable/GtkCssProvider.html#id-1.5.3.10.6 https://developer.gnome.org/gtk3/stable/gtk3-Bindings.html I'm not sure how to discover what signals to bind to --- RTFS?
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
for a quick and obvious illustration of what's wrong with both top and bottom posting, see:
http://blog.nfllab.com/archives/6-Top-posting-considered-harmful.html
I would recommend http://web.archive.org/web/20070930211651/http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/200... -- Cheers, « Il n'est si homme de bien, qu'il mette à l'examen Rick Moen des loi toutes ses actions et pensées, qui ne soit rick@linuxmafia.com pendable dix fois en sa vie. » McQ! (4x80) -- Michel de Montaigne, Essais
On 2015-04-10 04:20, Craig Sanders wrote:
and send it with the vertical lines etc ?? i have no idea what you mean by "send it with vertical lines etc"
Some mailers (eg. Thunderbird) replace the ">" with a coloured vertical line. Anders
On 08/04/15 17:01, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
I would consider myself to be a bit of a libertarian, we have far too much regulation and government control over people.
Not sure you can be "a bit" of a libertarian. Either you are, or you aren't. If you support some regulation, then you're probably not a libertarian. Essentially, what you're saying is that you only like the laws that you like. But hey, to paraphrase someone or other, a libertarian is just an anarchist who is too lazy or too scared to move to Somalia.
" Not sure you can be "a bit" of a libertarian. Either you are, or you
aren't. If you support some regulation, then you're probably not a libertarian. Essentially, what you're saying is that you only like the laws that you like. "
Sounds like me :P I like the broad concept of libertarians but I don't actually think it would be a great overall system. We should limit governments powers but libertarians can go a little too far at times. I also could be talking total crap right now. -- Sent from my GNU/Linux-Libre box. Run free. http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html Come Visit Free Software Australia - http://freesoftware.org.au/ jabjabs@fastmail.com.au On Wed, Apr 8, 2015, at 21:29, Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:
On 08/04/15 17:01, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
I would consider myself to be a bit of a libertarian, we have far too much regulation and government control over people.
Not sure you can be "a bit" of a libertarian. Either you are, or you aren't. If you support some regulation, then you're probably not a libertarian. Essentially, what you're saying is that you only like the laws that you like.
But hey, to paraphrase someone or other, a libertarian is just an anarchist who is too lazy or too scared to move to Somalia.
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 09:43:34 AM Michael Verrenkamp wrote:
" Not sure you can be "a bit" of a libertarian. Either you are, or you aren't. If you support some regulation, then you're probably not a libertarian. Essentially, what you're saying is that you only like the laws that you like. "
Sounds like me :P I like the broad concept of libertarians but I don't actually think it would be a great overall system. We should limit governments powers but libertarians can go a little too far at times. I also could be talking total crap right now.
The purpose of a democracy is to limit the government to doing things that meet the general approval of the citizens. A modern democratic government is a representative democracy because direct democracy would result in wild changes in policy by people who can't consider all the issues (representatives are supposed to make a full time job of understanding legislation that they vote on). The way that some US states allow direct votes about legislation at elections is an example of why direct democracy isn't a good thing. Australia and the US have a state based system where the lower house has representatives for similar numbers of people while the upper house has representatives for each state. This limits the ability of the government to mistreat states with small populations while also giving equal representation to each citizen via votes for the lower house. We have a consititution that can't be easily changed to limit the powers of the government in terms of significant changes to the legal or judicial system. Laws have to be interpreted by the courts and bad laws can by nullified by a jury. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) Prior to the development of modern democratic governments people's lives were run by wealthy and powerful people. The Irish Potato Famine is an example of what happens when the wealthy get most of the things that the Libertarians want. Government was limited and the middlemen who acted on behalf of absentee landlords literally had the power of life and death over the population. Libertarianism was never about allowing middle-class people to do what they want. It was always about facilitating the rich and sociopathic who want to treat everyone else badly. I'm not going to provide links, but a quick google search will turn up self-diagnosed sociopaths expressing admiration for Ayn Rand for her psychopathic personality traits. The fact that people who boast about their desire to hurt other people and admit to acting in a way that is widely regarded as evil admire Ayn so much says a lot about her and the political movement she inspired. Now if you want a government that doesn't mess with their citizens much then The Netherlands is a good example. In .nl you can use any drug you like as long as you don't cause problems, marriage equality happened earlier than most countries, and generally there aren't many laws stopping you from doing anything that doesn't hurt other people. Gun ownership is restricted because that DOES hurt other people. In spite (or maybe because) of libertarianism the US has lots of very invasive laws, they lead the "war on drugs" and export it to every other country. They are only just starting to legalise marriage equality, and they have more support for giving legal guns to people who are likely to kill innocent civilians than any other country. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/26386-rothbard-on-children-not-for- the-squeamish/ Murray Rothbard (the founder of modern "libertarianism") believes that parents should be allowed to starve their children to death. http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/baby-found-starved-nearly-death-lazy- parents-video/ Above is an article on a libertarian site about parents who literally starved their baby almost to death (the doctors initially thought that they couldn't save the baby). Lots of comments about how bad the parents are, stupid libertarians don't even know their own politics. Real libertarians would only object to the prison sentence for neglecting a child. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 10/04/2015 5:24 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 09:43:34 AM Michael Verrenkamp wrote:
" Not sure you can be "a bit" of a libertarian. Either you are, or you aren't. If you support some regulation, then you're probably not a libertarian. Essentially, what you're saying is that you only like the laws that you like. "
Sounds like me :P I like the broad concept of libertarians but I don't actually think it would be a great overall system. We should limit governments powers but libertarians can go a little too far at times. I also could be talking total crap right now.
The purpose of a democracy is to limit the government to doing things that meet the general approval of the citizens.
Governments don't give a rats about what the people want. They pretend to, then break all their promises .... and then blame other major party. Happens regularly. They are self interested and destroyed by lobbying big business and other organizations that can give enough money to the party for expected favours and benefits.
We have a consititution that can't be easily changed to limit the powers of the government in terms of significant changes to the legal or judicial system. Laws have to be interpreted by the courts and bad laws can by nullified by a jury.
People power, is not near as strong as it should be. For the people by the people ... our constitution makes it clear that the government is to act in our interests. And of course I don't want clueless people dictating to the government either, but there is a place for people to rally for good causes and the government to listen to the will of the people.
Prior to the development of modern democratic governments people's lives were run by wealthy and powerful people. The Irish Potato Famine is an example of what happens when the wealthy get most of the things that the Libertarians want. Government was limited and the middlemen who acted on behalf of absentee landlords literally had the power of life and death over the population.
What's changed? If Westfield shopping centres don't have 10 - 12 % turn over of tennants, they haven't put the rent up enough. Rich getting richer, poor shop tennants give up everything they might have left to pay more to the rich owners in lease fees or close shop.
Libertarianism was never about allowing middle-class people to do what they want. It was always about facilitating the rich and sociopathic who want to treat everyone else badly. I'm not going to provide links, but a quick google search will turn up self-diagnosed sociopaths expressing admiration for Ayn Rand for her psychopathic personality traits. The fact that people who boast about their desire to hurt other people and admit to acting in a way that is widely regarded as evil admire Ayn so much says a lot about her and the political movement she inspired.
I have no interest in harming anybody, but at the same time, I would like to be more free to do as I please generally, rather than for everything or at least too many things being regulated to a ridiculous level.
Now if you want a government that doesn't mess with their citizens much then The Netherlands is a good example. In .nl you can use any drug you like as long as you don't cause problems, marriage equality happened earlier than most countries, and generally there aren't many laws stopping you from doing anything that doesn't hurt other people. Gun ownership is restricted because that DOES hurt other people.
Interesting, but I prefer no drugs and that includes big pharma as well. I'll make more enemies now, vaccination is a great big industry to support big pharma, I think it is less about helping eradicate disease even if it actually does, that is not the point. The big pharma industry is supported for good or bad and we all pay more for what is needed in this area.
Murray Rothbard (the founder of modern "libertarianism") believes that parents should be allowed to starve their children to death.
I most certainly do not believe that. Perhaps libertarianism is far too strong for my views. But I would like to see the government be there to protect people, but not to persecute them or drive them in to other problems just because they have the power. Laws may need adjustment from time to time, but we don't need new laws being created time and time again -- it can get far too complicated and whilst ignorance is no excuse for breaking a law, a bad law or too many ... and you would need everyone to spend a lifetime just learning the laws. A.
On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 09:14:34 AM Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Sounds like me :P I like the broad concept of libertarians but I don't actually think it would be a great overall system. We should limit governments powers but libertarians can go a little too far at times. I also could be talking total crap right now.
The purpose of a democracy is to limit the government to doing things that meet the general approval of the citizens.
Governments don't give a rats about what the people want. They pretend to, then break all their promises .... and then blame other major party. Happens regularly. They are self interested and destroyed by lobbying big business and other organizations that can give enough money to the party for expected favours and benefits.
Democracy doesn't achieve it's goals as well as it should. But that's a lot better than libertarianism achieving any of it's goals.
We have a consititution that can't be easily changed to limit the powers of the government in terms of significant changes to the legal or judicial system. Laws have to be interpreted by the courts and bad laws can by nullified by a jury.
People power, is not near as strong as it should be. For the people by the people ... our constitution makes it clear that the government is to act in our interests. And of course I don't want clueless people dictating to the government either, but there is a place for people to rally for good causes and the government to listen to the will of the people.
It happens too. Remember that we are now in the "good government" stage of Tony Abbot's term as PM - he has implicitely admitted that his previous time in office was one of "bad government".
Prior to the development of modern democratic governments people's lives were run by wealthy and powerful people. The Irish Potato Famine is an example of what happens when the wealthy get most of the things that the Libertarians want. Government was limited and the middlemen who acted on behalf of absentee landlords literally had the power of life and death over the population.
What's changed? If Westfield shopping centres don't have 10 - 12 % turn over of tennants, they haven't put the rent up enough. Rich getting richer, poor shop tennants give up everything they might have left to pay more to the rich owners in lease fees or close shop.
There's a big difference between a shop owner closing up shop and people starving to death in the Irish Potato Famine. That said we need more government controls over such things not less.
Libertarianism was never about allowing middle-class people to do what they want. It was always about facilitating the rich and sociopathic who want to treat everyone else badly. I'm not going to provide links, but a quick google search will turn up self-diagnosed sociopaths expressing admiration for Ayn Rand for her psychopathic personality traits. The fact that people who boast about their desire to hurt other people and admit to acting in a way that is widely regarded as evil admire Ayn so much says a lot about her and the political movement she inspired.
I have no interest in harming anybody, but at the same time, I would like to be more free to do as I please generally, rather than for everything or at least too many things being regulated to a ridiculous level.
You are generally free to do as you please without harming anyone. Of course if you want to use recreational chemicals as you please then you would be better off in Amsterdam. When you find yourself agreeing with the self-diagnosed sociopaths of the Internet then your political ideas probably aren't well described as "no interest in harming anybody".
Now if you want a government that doesn't mess with their citizens much then The Netherlands is a good example. In .nl you can use any drug you like as long as you don't cause problems, marriage equality happened earlier than most countries, and generally there aren't many laws stopping you from doing anything that doesn't hurt other people. Gun ownership is restricted because that DOES hurt other people.
Interesting, but I prefer no drugs and that includes big pharma as well.
You don't HAVE to take drugs in .nl. It's just one aspect of a free society that people have the option to do such things.
I'll make more enemies now, vaccination is a great big industry to support big pharma, I think it is less about helping eradicate disease even if it actually does, that is not the point. The big pharma industry is supported for good or bad and we all pay more for what is needed in this area.
That's because you are very gullible. You believe any conspiracy theory that goes around.
Murray Rothbard (the founder of modern "libertarianism") believes that parents should be allowed to starve their children to death.
I most certainly do not believe that. Perhaps libertarianism is far too strong for my views. But I would like to see the government be there to protect people, but not to persecute them or drive them in to other problems just because they have the power. Laws may need adjustment from time to time, but we don't need new laws being created time and time again -- it can get far too complicated and whilst ignorance is no excuse for breaking a law, a bad law or too many ... and you would need everyone to spend a lifetime just learning the laws.
I agree that the laws are too complex. A large part of that is due to lack of logic when designing laws, often due to bad attempts to impose morality via the legal system. For example the idea of a Basic Income is opposed on moral grounds because people who are less fortunate are regarded as unworthy of assistance. But the research has shown that when people get a Basic Income they usually spend it on education and improve their situation. Keeping people stuck in poverty because of a moral objection to helping them is bad morals and bad economics. Better to help them improve their situation and become taxpayers! If a Basic Income replaced most social security and most tax deductions then the tax laws would be greatly simplified. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
Democracy doesn't achieve it's goals as well as it should.
There is also death and taxes. (I personally doubt that Death is even an anthopomorphic representation who speaks in dry witticisms phrased in all capital letters, but a man can dream.)
There's a big difference between a shop owner closing up shop and people starving to death in the Irish Potato Famine.
A propos of nothing in particular, the Potato Famine resulted in about 3 million additional Britons, Yanks, and Aussies, just as the Highland Closures resulted in a large number of Canadians in the maritime provinces and residents of the US Appalachian region. The effect on Ireland of the Famine was so dire that the island's population still has not recovered, and may never reach that point again.
On 11/04/2015 1:25 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 09:14:34 AM Andrew McGlashan wrote:
I have no interest in harming anybody, but at the same time, I would like to be more free to do as I please generally, rather than for everything or at least too many things being regulated to a ridiculous level.
You are generally free to do as you please without harming anyone. Of course if you want to use recreational chemicals as you please then you would be better off in Amsterdam.
When you find yourself agreeing with the self-diagnosed sociopaths of the Internet then your political ideas probably aren't well described as "no interest in harming anybody".
Bullshit Russell.
Murray Rothbard (the founder of modern "libertarianism") believes that parents should be allowed to starve their children to death.
More bullshit. Of course, everything Snowden tells us about what has been going on was also "just a conspiracy" ... but it's not is it? Almost all the other rubbish you wrote doesn't even warrant a reply. Cheers A.
On Sat, April 11, 2015 12:47 pm, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Murray Rothbard (the founder of modern "libertarianism") believes that parents should be allowed to starve their children to death.
More bullshit.
Ummm.. That's actually true. He considered parental neglect to be "liberty". Rothbard believed that whilst a parent or guardian doesn't have a right to harm a child, they do not have any responsibility to care. In the 'Ethics of Liberty' he states a parent "may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die... the law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive." Essentially Rothbard had a one-eyed view of "liberty". It applied to negative liberty only (i.e., the absence of force) rather than positive liberty (i.e., enabling action). Unsurprisingly he also supported the abolition of child labour laws. "Supposedly 'humanitarian' child labor laws, have systematically forcibly prevented children from entering the labor force, thereby privileging their adult competitors." He also supported selling of children, to generate a "flourishing free market in children". Still, he did hold their moral right to run away, and thus assert their independence. In a later chapter of the same book he claimed that it was ethical for legal forces to torture criminal suspects... On which, if a crime is confirmed, they are exonerated. Which generates a very interesting motivational structure... -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On 11/04/2015 12:05 PM, Lev Lafayette wrote:
On Sat, April 11, 2015 12:47 pm, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Murray Rothbard (the founder of modern "libertarianism") believes that parents should be allowed to starve their children to death.
More bullshit.
Ummm.. That's actually true. He considered parental neglect to be "liberty". Rothbard believed that whilst a parent or guardian doesn't have a right to harm a child, they do not have any responsibility to care.
As I posted soon after, it was an incorrect quoting error I'm not disputing that fact above, but am disputing other nonsense, which I clarified already. And once again, I do not support such views that are being bandied about for libertarians ... again, it is clear that has been an incorrect use of the term "libertarian" by myself. A.
Lev Lafayette wrote:
On Sat, April 11, 2015 12:47 pm, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Murray Rothbard (the founder of modern "libertarianism") believes that parents should be allowed to starve their children to death. More bullshit.
..................snip
Are yes ; political philosophy on luv-talk, none of this namby pamby comparison of theories , standpoints and values; good and evil are alive and well and truth will prevail !
He also supported selling of children, to generate a "flourishing free market in children". Still, he did hold their moral right to run away, and thus assert their independence.
In a later chapter of the same book he claimed that it was ethical for legal forces to torture criminal suspects... On which, if a crime is confirmed, they are exonerated. Which generates a very interesting motivational structure...
Where does he stand on on-the-spot-capital punishment for traffic infringements; with post-mortem infringements to be billed to the family ? regards Rohan McLeod
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 02:33:33PM +1000, Rohan McLeod wrote:
He also supported selling of children, to generate a "flourishing free market in children".
this makes perfect sense to Libertarians because children are, of course, property and markets are the best, indeed only, way to solve all problems (including the problem of matching sellers with excess children they want to get rid of with buyers who have insufficient children). without a flourishing free market, sellers might be forced to simply abandon their excess children without any chance to make a profit or even recover expenses and many businesses who could benefit from having a few more children would have to go without and be unable to expand their business or even replaced damaged assets.
Still, he did hold their moral right to run away, and thus assert their independence.
as long as no-one helps them (theft!) or feeds them (welfare!)
In a later chapter of the same book he claimed that it was ethical for legal forces to torture criminal suspects... On which, if a crime is confirmed, they are exonerated. Which generates a very interesting motivational structure...
Where does he stand on on-the-spot-capital punishment for traffic infringements; with post-mortem infringements to be billed to the family ?
if you want to know how an american-style Libertarian thinks, just look for whichever idea promotes property rights to the greatest extent, no matter how insane it might sound. so, presumably it depends on the skin colour and family history of the infringer, because that determines whether they ought to be property or not (the emancipation of slaves was an evil statist theft of private property and is still completely invalid even now). of course, if a hereditary owner can be deduced then the state owes them compensation for destruction of their property. a secondary consideration is how much property and what kind the infringer owns. if they don't own much then shooting them in the back is justified action against the criminal classes. if they do own a lot, then shooting them would be some kind of property crime (the only kind that matters). craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 02:33:33PM +1000, Rohan McLeod wrote:
He also supported selling of children, to generate a "flourishing free market in children".
this makes perfect sense to Libertarians because children are, of course, property and markets are the best, indeed only, way to solve all problems (including the problem of matching sellers with excess children they want to get rid of with buyers who have insufficient children).
without a flourishing free market, sellers might be forced to simply abandon their excess children without any chance to make a profit or even recover expenses and many businesses who could benefit from having a few more children would have to go without and be unable to expand their business or even replaced damaged assets.
Regarding children as property is a problem that has a far wider scope than libertarians. In our society kids officially can't legally leave the control of their parents until they are 16, but in practice the police won't forcibly return them when they are a few months away from their 16th birthday. As far as I'm aware in child custody disputes the children have little input to the decisions.
In a later chapter of the same book he claimed that it was ethical for legal forces to torture criminal suspects... On which, if a crime is confirmed, they are exonerated. Which generates a very interesting motivational structure...
Where does he stand on on-the-spot-capital punishment for traffic infringements; with post-mortem infringements to be billed to the family ?
if you want to know how an american-style Libertarian thinks, just look for whichever idea promotes property rights to the greatest extent, no matter how insane it might sound.
so, presumably it depends on the skin colour and family history of the infringer, because that determines whether they ought to be property or not (the emancipation of slaves was an evil statist theft of private property and is still completely invalid even now). of course, if a hereditary owner can be deduced then the state owes them compensation for destruction of their property.
a secondary consideration is how much property and what kind the infringer owns. if they don't own much then shooting them in the back is justified action against the criminal classes. if they do own a lot, then shooting them would be some kind of property crime (the only kind that matters).
http://mises.org/library/brutality-slavery The above article by Rothbard is worth reading. Note that he doesn't take any sort of hard line against slavery. His opening paragraph is about why slave- owners have to care for their slaves to preserve their property value while "they could exploit the bondservants more ruthlessly because they did not own them permanently". http://theyesmen.org/hijinks/wharton Some time ago "The Yes Men" did a satirical presentation about African slavery which pretty much rips off Rothbard's ideas in this regard. http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com.au/2010/07/murray-rothbard-lew- rockwell-and.html The above URL has some background on Rothbard and race. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 02:33:33PM +1000, Rohan McLeod wrote:
He also supported selling of children, to generate a "flourishing free market in children".
this makes perfect sense to Libertarians because children are, of course, property and markets are the best, indeed only, way to solve all problems (including the problem of matching sellers with excess children they want to get rid of with buyers who have insufficient children).
without a flourishing free market, sellers might be forced to simply abandon their excess children without any chance to make a profit or even recover expenses and many businesses who could benefit from having a few more children would have to go without and be unable to expand their business or even replaced damaged assets.
Regarding children as property is a problem that has a far wider scope than libertarians. In our society kids officially can't legally leave the control of their parents until they are 16, but in practice the police won't forcibly return them when they are a few months away from their 16th birthday. As far as I'm aware in child custody disputes the children have little input to the decisions.
In a later chapter of the same book he claimed that it was ethical for legal forces to torture criminal suspects... On which, if a crime is confirmed, they are exonerated. Which generates a very interesting motivational structure...
Where does he stand on on-the-spot-capital punishment for traffic infringements; with post-mortem infringements to be billed to the family ?
if you want to know how an american-style Libertarian thinks, just look for whichever idea promotes property rights to the greatest extent, no matter how insane it might sound.
so, presumably it depends on the skin colour and family history of the infringer, because that determines whether they ought to be property or not (the emancipation of slaves was an evil statist theft of private property and is still completely invalid even now). of course, if a hereditary owner can be deduced then the state owes them compensation for destruction of their property.
a secondary consideration is how much property and what kind the infringer owns. if they don't own much then shooting them in the back is justified action against the criminal classes. if they do own a lot, then shooting them would be some kind of property crime (the only kind that matters).
http://mises.org/library/brutality-slavery The above article by Rothbard is worth reading. Note that he doesn't take any sort of hard line against slavery. His opening paragraph is about why slave- owners have to care for their slaves to preserve their property value while "they could exploit the bondservants more ruthlessly because they did not own them permanently". http://theyesmen.org/hijinks/wharton Some time ago "The Yes Men" did a satirical presentation about African slavery which pretty much rips off Rothbard's ideas in this regard. http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com.au/2010/07/murray-rothbard-lew- rockwell-and.html The above URL has some background on Rothbard and race. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015, Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
Lev Lafayette wrote:
On Sat, April 11, 2015 12:47 pm, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Murray Rothbard (the founder of modern "libertarianism") believes that parents should be allowed to starve their children to death.
More bullshit.
..................snip
Are yes ; political philosophy on luv-talk, none of this namby pamby comparison of theories , standpoints and values; good and evil are alive and well and truth will prevail !
Truth does actually exist. Many political ideas really are evil. I reject the idea of "standpoints", anyone who's argument is "I'm entitled to my opinion" has just conceded the fact that their argument is not sustainable.
He also supported selling of children, to generate a "flourishing free market in children". Still, he did hold their moral right to run away, and thus assert their independence.
In a later chapter of the same book he claimed that it was ethical for legal forces to torture criminal suspects... On which, if a crime is confirmed, they are exonerated. Which generates a very interesting motivational structure...
Where does he stand on on-the-spot-capital punishment for traffic infringements; with post-mortem infringements to be billed to the family ?
http://mises.org/library/libertarian-position-capital-punishment The above article written by Murray Rothbard says that punishment should match the crime. So execution for theft is wrong but a fine in proportion to the value stolen is right. But he also says that the choice of whether a murderer should be executed should be up to the relatives of the victim. Presumably an effective genocide would be free of consequence under a libertarian system as there are no relatives remaining. Also orphans could be freely killed and any murder that is not discovered for a few decades would have a good chance of being free of consequence as the relatives may have died of old age first. That on it's own makes the libertarian ideal of justice about as good as that of Saudi Arabia - which isn't a great criticism, being as good as Saudi Arabia is about the best thing one could say about anything libertarian. The real issue though is that there's no rights for individuals under libertarianism. If you divided the lost tax revenue from road deaths (estimates commonly range from $4M to $6M per person) by the number of people who are booked by speeding then you could probably justify "restitution" that is a large enough sum of money to make poorer people unable to afford food. People who are unable to pay for food after being fined could then be allowed to starve to death. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 11/04/2015 3:40 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
http://mises.org/library/libertarian-position-capital-punishment
Just stop the nonsense. No-one here wants or is a libertarian by the definitions and references on this list. I've already made it crystal clear that I am NOT a libertarian by ANY those definitions. What is the purpose of continuing this nonsense beyond the much more real issue, within this group, of the right to evade copyright laws and prosecution through illegally downloading movies and tv shows? Get back on topic. A.
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On 11/04/2015 3:40 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
http://mises.org/library/libertarian-position-capital-punishment
Just stop the nonsense. No-one here wants or is a libertarian by the definitions and references on this list. I've already made it crystal clear that I am NOT a libertarian by ANY those definitions.
We have had similar discussions several times in the past. Similar information has been presented. But some people (such as you) were apparently not convinced last time. Lev gave the history of the term "libertarian", I think it's safe to say that the anarchist definitions have left common use a long time ago. Anyone who uses the word "libertarian" nowadays and isn't talking about history is talking about Rothbard et al.
What is the purpose of continuing this nonsense beyond the much more
A question was asked and I answered it. The fact that you don't like the discussion is not relevant. You don't set the list policy.
Get back on topic.
This list is for random discussions, the description is "General chat list for LUV members". This discussion is on-topic. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 04:01:33PM +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 11/04/2015 3:40 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
http://mises.org/library/libertarian-position-capital-punishment
Just stop the nonsense. No-one here wants or is a libertarian by the definitions and references on this list. I've already made it crystal clear that I am NOT a libertarian by ANY those definitions.
you've promoted enough loony libertarian ideas and web sites in the past that your current attempt to disassociate yourself from it doesn't seem all that credible.
What is the purpose of continuing this nonsense beyond the much more real issue, within this group, of the right to evade copyright laws and prosecution through illegally downloading movies and tv shows?
does anyone here seriously believe that there is an actual right to do that? or that there should be such a right? some or even many here might believe that privacy rights trump a copyright holder's desire to find the identity of the account holder of certain IP addresses, and that an IP address doesn't identify the infringer. and many might believe that compensation for copyright-holders should be limited to the actual retail cost of the items and any legitimate expenses incurred (or zero if the infringer can prove they bought a copy). and some may think "fuck it, i'm not likely to get caught" and download stuff regardless of copyright laws. but i doubt that anyone really believes that there is a right to infringe copyright. especially since the GPL depends on copyright in order to work. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Craig Sanders wrote:
What is the purpose of continuing this nonsense beyond the much more real issue, within this group, of the right to evade copyright laws and prosecution through illegally downloading movies and tv shows?
does anyone here seriously believe that there is an actual right to do that? or that there should be such a right?
This is the point when I usually cite these: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_(Macaulay) https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Second_Speech_on_Copyright_Law IMO, 1. the length of copy rights are currently far too long; 2. in theory, the appropriate response is to fix the laws; 3. in practice, the world is run by oligarchs so (2) won't ever happen. 4. I guess copyright violation could be considered civil disobedience, but fuck it, I'll just reread Alice in Wonderland instead of ASOIAF.
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 02:47:30AM +1000, Trent W. Buck wrote:
IMO,
1. the length of copy rights are currently far too long; 2. in theory, the appropriate response is to fix the laws; 3. in practice, the world is run by oligarchs so (2) won't ever happen. 4. I guess copyright violation could be considered civil disobedience, but fuck it, I'll just reread Alice in Wonderland instead of ASOIAF.
true, i agree with all of that....and civil disobedience is one of the major reasons why people indulge in copyright infringement that i somehow completely forgot to mention. but civil disobedience is not the same thing as having a right to pirate. assuming you have such a right when you don't can land you in legal hot water...whereas in an act of civil disobedience you accept the risk that you might get caught or, in some cases, getting caught and prosecuted is the entire point of the act because it a) is a protest and has a chance of publicising your POV that the law needs to be changed and b) gives you legal standing to challenge the law. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 02:47:30AM +1000, Trent W. Buck wrote:
IMO,
1. the length of copy rights are currently far too long; 2. in theory, the appropriate response is to fix the laws; 3. in practice, the world is run by oligarchs so (2) won't ever happen. 4. I guess copyright violation could be considered civil disobedience, but fuck it, I'll just reread Alice in Wonderland instead of ASOIAF.
true, i agree with all of that....and civil disobedience is one of the major reasons why people indulge in copyright infringement that i somehow completely forgot to mention.
but civil disobedience is not the same thing as having a right to pirate. assuming you have such a right when you don't can land you in legal hot water...
Ah, sorry. I thought you were talking about *moral* rights, not legal rights.
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On 11/04/2015 3:40 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
http://mises.org/library/libertarian-position-capital-punishment
Just stop the nonsense. No-one here wants or is a libertarian by the definitions and references on this list. I've already made it crystal clear that I am NOT a libertarian by ANY those definitions.
We have had similar discussions several times in the past. Similar information has been presented. But some people (such as you) were apparently not convinced last time. Lev gave the history of the term "libertarian", I think it's safe to say that the anarchist definitions have left common use a long time ago. Anyone who uses the word "libertarian" nowadays and isn't talking about history is talking about Rothbard et al.
What is the purpose of continuing this nonsense beyond the much more
A question was asked and I answered it. The fact that you don't like the discussion is not relevant. You don't set the list policy.
Get back on topic.
This list is for random discussions, the description is "General chat list for LUV members". This discussion is on-topic. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
Lev gave the history of the term "libertarian", I think it's safe to say that the anarchist definitions have left common use a long time ago. Anyone who uses the word "libertarian" nowadays and isn't talking about history is talking about Rothbard et al.
Actually, the anarcho- and left- use of the term 'libertarian' is still in common use (e.g., Alliance of the Libertarian Left, the UK's LibCom group etc). -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 04:01:33PM +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 11/04/2015 3:40 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
http://mises.org/library/libertarian-position-capital-punishment
Just stop the nonsense. No-one here wants or is a libertarian by the definitions and references on this list. I've already made it crystal clear that I am NOT a libertarian by ANY those definitions.
you've promoted enough loony libertarian ideas and web sites in the past that your current attempt to disassociate yourself from it doesn't seem all that credible.
What is the purpose of continuing this nonsense beyond the much more real issue, within this group, of the right to evade copyright laws and prosecution through illegally downloading movies and tv shows?
does anyone here seriously believe that there is an actual right to do that? or that there should be such a right? some or even many here might believe that privacy rights trump a copyright holder's desire to find the identity of the account holder of certain IP addresses, and that an IP address doesn't identify the infringer. and many might believe that compensation for copyright-holders should be limited to the actual retail cost of the items and any legitimate expenses incurred (or zero if the infringer can prove they bought a copy). and some may think "fuck it, i'm not likely to get caught" and download stuff regardless of copyright laws. but i doubt that anyone really believes that there is a right to infringe copyright. especially since the GPL depends on copyright in order to work. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
this is your third bogus resend now, it's starting to get annoying. plese stop re-sending messages back to the list with no comments or reply, just a changed subject line and bogus attribution of who said what. if you're trying to get people to shut up, it won't work. if your mail software is broken, then fix it. and if you don't like what people are saying then stop reading or create a killfile. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 08:48:35 AM Craig Sanders wrote:
this is your third bogus resend now, it's starting to get annoying.
plese stop re-sending messages back to the list with no comments or reply, just a changed subject line and bogus attribution of who said what.
In regard to the previous topic of discussion it's worth noting that such re- sending with bogus attribution is plagiarism at best and can be regarded as a copyright violation. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 11/04/2015 6:48 PM, Craig Sanders wrote:
this is your third bogus resend now, it's starting to get annoying.
Just use an adjusted subject, where appropriate.
if your mail software is broken, then fix it.
It's not broken, the subject is. Please, if you must comment on anything, use an appropriate subject, don't hijack threads and cause reading and relevancy issues. Oh and anything I say that you disagree with, I must be stupid. Same thinking seems to go for Russell too. Neither of you think that you could possibly be wrong and regardless of whether or not you are right or wrong, I am still entitled to be my own person with my own views however you see them is YOUR problem, not mine. Let's just agree to disagree and stop your constant bullying [both yourself and Russell] . As Rohan said [and/or alluded to], not every set of "facts" makes sense to everyone and opinions don't need to be argued ad infinitum ... it's rather pointless. Furthermore, many so called facts change over time for lots of reasons, sometimes a generally held set of "facts" turns out to be a fiction, sometimes not. A.
Russell Coker wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015, Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
Lev Lafayette wrote:
On Sat, April 11, 2015 12:47 pm, Andrew McGlashan wrote: Are yes ; political philosophy on luv-talk, none of this namby pamby comparison of theories , standpoints and values; good and evil are alive and well and truth will prevail ! Truth does actually exist.
Well I would allow scientific theories are objectively falsifiable; perhaps phenomenological theories are phenomenologically falsifiable eg. someone suggests a certain meditational system will have a subjectively observable effect; perhaps even mathematical theorems as hypothetical conclusions in a certain axiom system.; are hypthetically falsifiable. eg one can actually check the sum of the angles of a Euclidean triangle sum to 180 deg ; providing the triangle is not too large. But I can't imagine what would be intended by "falsifying' a value statement
Many political ideas really are evil.
Philosophers agree to disagree about a great many things; the nature and existence of good and evil are high on the list. Some (ethical realists) would agree an act is evil in the same way an apple is red; others that good and evil are of the nature of existential (aka non-contingent) choices eg Hamlet "....nothing's ether good or bad but thinking makes it so .."
I reject the idea of "standpoints",
Personally by 'standpoint' I intend: " A situation where a number of approaches or points of view are possible ; but only one is chosen" eg from the "standpoint" of an elephant, a lion is a small animal; from the standpoint of a mouse, a lion is a large animal eg, from the stand point of a front view the elephant will look quite different from a side view; I would think a standpoint may be untenable; if alturnatives don't exist; but I doubt that they like value statements are in any way falsifiable
anyone who's argument is "I'm entitled to my opinion" has just conceded the fact that their argument is not sustainable.
I'm not a huge fan of arguement and debate; mostly it just seems to establish who is the best debater. Enquiry seems to me to be poorly served by attempts to justify or disqualify a conclusion; particularly when there is some emotional attachment or aversion to it. regards Rohan McLeod
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:19:30 AM Rohan McLeod wrote:
Russell Coker wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015, Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
Lev Lafayette wrote:
On Sat, April 11, 2015 12:47 pm, Andrew McGlashan wrote: Are yes ; political philosophy on luv-talk,
none of this namby pamby comparison of theories , standpoints and values;
good and evil are alive and well and
truth will prevail !
Truth does actually exist.
Well I would allow scientific theories are objectively falsifiable; perhaps phenomenological theories are phenomenologically falsifiable eg. someone suggests a certain meditational system will have a subjectively observable effect; perhaps even mathematical theorems as hypothetical conclusions in a certain axiom system.; are hypthetically falsifiable. eg one can actually check the sum of the angles of a Euclidean triangle sum to 180 deg ; providing the triangle is not too large. But I can't imagine what would be intended by "falsifying' a value statement
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/baby-found-starved-nearly-death-lazy- parents-video/ Value statements can be logically deduced from other value statements. It's generally agreed that murder is wrong, even Rothbard agrees with that. Therefore it logically follows that starving people to death is also wrong, and the majority of people who identify as libertarian seem to agree given the comments on the above article.
Many political ideas really are evil.
Philosophers agree to disagree about a great many things; the nature and existence of good and evil are high on the list. Some (ethical realists) would agree an act is evil in the same way an apple is red; others that good and evil are of the nature of existential (aka non-contingent) choices eg Hamlet "....nothing's ether good or bad but thinking makes it so .."
Given that we agree that killing people is wrong then defining "evil" as killing lots of people seems reasonable. Government policies can result in the death of many people. Consider the invasion of Iraq or the US medical insurance system that the Republican party supports.
I reject
the idea of "standpoints",
Personally by 'standpoint' I intend: " A situation where a number of approaches or points of view are possible ; but only one is chosen" eg from the "standpoint" of an elephant, a lion is a small animal; from the standpoint of a mouse, a lion is a large animal eg, from the stand point of a front view the elephant will look quite different from a side view;
We went through that on this very list some time ago. Someone claimed that the government debt is "large" as an excuse to cut services. When it was pointed out that our government debt is small when compared to other countries they just ignored that and basically claimed that all government debt is large - which means that large government debt is not a reason for any particular policy. To have a conversation, discussion, or debate you need to have words that have a meaning. It's impossible to have a discussion with someone who like Humpty Dumpty makes up their own meanings for words and changes the meanings retrospectively.
anyone who's argument is "I'm entitled to my opinion" has just conceded the fact that their argument is not sustainable.
I'm not a huge fan of arguement and debate; mostly it just seems to establish who is the best debater. Enquiry seems to me to be poorly served by attempts to justify or disqualify a conclusion; particularly when there is some emotional attachment or aversion to it.
I read an article claiming that a trend in the 80's and 90's of teaching fundamentalist Christian kids debating skills with the aim of making them effective evangelists resulted in many of them becoming atheists. They were taught the skills to recognise the flaws in their own arguments. But in the debates here the main issue is whether people are actually prepared to do any research. We discuss libertarianism (which in the most common modern use of the word refers to the work of Murray Rothbard) so I spent some time reading his actual articles and articles written by his fans and summarised them. Anyone who believes that I have misrepresented libertarianism is free to read Rothbard's articles and do google searches for related articles to try and prove me wrong. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker wrote:
Value statements can be logically deduced from other value statements. It's generally agreed that murder is wrong, even Rothbard agrees with that. Therefore it logically follows that starving people to death is also wrong, [...]
Er, you're making some pretty big semantic jumps there. *Murder* might be "wrong", but I don't see where you're demonstrating that "starving people" is automatically murder -- rather than (say) manslaughter, criminal negligence, assisted suicide, or lawful killing.
Given that we agree that killing people is wrong then defining "evil" [...]
You've just jumped from "murder" to "killing people". I'm not convinced you can handwave away these distinctions.
On Sat, April 11, 2015 6:19 pm, Rohan McLeod wrote:
But I can't imagine what would be intended by "falsifying' a value statement
Is that an objective value, a subjective value, or an intersubjective value? In other words, when you realise by what criteria you verify each of these statements, then you will also discover by what means one would falsify statements making these value claims. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Lev Lafayette wrote:
On Sat, April 11, 2015 6:19 pm, Rohan McLeod wrote:
But I can't imagine what would be intended by "falsifying' a value statement
Is that an objective value, a subjective value, or an intersubjective value?
Well I would see all values as subjective; though we may share them; the values may concern objective (aka material) phenomena eg.aesthetics of design, ethics of social behaviors or they may concern subjective phenomena eg. pain (which the Bhuddists claim is just a very strong opinion !)
In other words, when you realise by what criteria you verify each of these statements, then you will also discover by what means one would falsify statements making these value claims.
I don't see a problem with "verifiable statement " used loosely to contrast with a statement, whose credibility say is based on the authority of it's source; (I use the word 'scholastic' for such.....somewhat ideosyncratically !) But the problem with verification is it is not the compliment of falsification. One fact can falsify a theory (make it false regardless of any further facts); but how could one fact make a theory true regardless of any further facts ? For me a statement of fact ; objective, subjective, hypothetical (eg mathematical), perhaps metaphysical (as a correlation between subjective and objective); explicitly (but more often implicitely) asserts a number (often infinite) of facts. Falsification then simply amounts to an observed fact which contradicts one of those. But falsification in this sense doesn't seem applicable to value statements; or is applicable with great difficulty "This is a good axe " might be transformed into a factual statement " This axe fully conforms to the general functional expectation of an axe" say; and that functional expectation would imply many facts. But "This is a good person" would be much more problematic to so transform; certainly in any sense which would have general acceptance regards Rohan
On Sun, April 12, 2015 10:07 am, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Lev Lafayette wrote:
Is that an objective value, a subjective value, or an intersubjective value?
Well I would see all values as subjective; though we may share them;
Surely you don't claim that the values of weights and measures are subjective?
But the problem with verification is it is not the compliment of falsification. One fact can falsify a theory (make it false regardless of any further facts); but how could one fact make a theory true regardless of any further facts ?
Verification doesn't claim that. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Lev Lafayette wrote:
On Sun, April 12, 2015 10:07 am, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Lev Lafayette wrote:
Is that an objective value, a subjective value, or an intersubjective value? Well I would see all values as subjective; though we may share them; Surely you don't claim that the values of weights and measures are subjective?
Of course not; that is quite a different usage of the word 'value'; I am using 'value" as shorthand for ' value judgement'; ie. a statement about how someting should or shouldn't be
But the problem with verification is it is not the compliment of falsification. One fact can falsify a theory (make it false regardless of any further facts); but how could one fact make a theory true regardless of any further facts ? Verification doesn't claim that.
Yes; more sensibly it limits itself to " consistency with the body of facts, thus far'; but naive notions of truth and verification are frequent enough (I think); to justify making clear that science (say) is more precisely concerned with, falsification than verification. regards Rohan
On Sun, April 12, 2015 11:40 am, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Of course not; that is quite a different usage of the word 'value'; I am using 'value" as shorthand for ' value judgement'; ie. a statement about how someting should or shouldn't be
I would suggest expanding your concept of value as follows; a) Claims of objective values, which verified and falsified by external correspondence, *the* world, what is true. b) Claims of intersubjective values, which verified and falsified by mutual consensus, *our* world, what is good. b) Claims of subjective values, which verified and falsified by sincere expressions, *my* world, what is beautiful. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Lev Lafayette wrote:
On Sun, April 12, 2015 11:40 am, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Of course not; that is quite a different usage of the word 'value'; I am using 'value" as shorthand for ' value judgement'; ie. a statement about how someting should or shouldn't be I would suggest expanding your concept of value as follows;
a) Claims of objective values, which verified and falsified by external correspondence, *the* world, what is true.
b) Claims of intersubjective values, which verified and falsified by mutual consensus, *our* world, what is good.
b) Claims of subjective values, which verified and falsified by sincere expressions, *my* world, what is beautiful.
I'm going to read "objective value" as a value judgement about an objective phenomena. That is a statement about how some objective phenomena, should or should not be; now for me such a statement is ontologically distinct from a factual statement; about the same objective phenomena. So there can be no possibility of expanding " a value judgement about something"; to include factual statements. The same would be true of subjective phenomena. Regarding "intersubjective" ; well I don't know would be intended by this word ; in the context of subjective and objective; perhaps you can provide an example. "Subjective" aka phenomenological referes to things which are intrinsically; percievable only to one person. Objective aka material refers to things which are intrinsically percievable ; by many people. eg My headache is subjective; it's neural correlate is objective; well it will be ! I'm not entirely convinced especially giiven the misunderstanding , concerning the other usage of value; that this is not some kind of semantic issue ? regards Rohan
On Sun, April 12, 2015 8:48 pm, Rohan McLeod wrote:
I'm going to read "objective value" as a value judgement about an objective phenomena.
An objective value judgement is a statement of fact. e.g., "this computer weighs 1.5kgs".
Regarding "intersubjective" ; well I don't know would be intended by this word ; in the context of subjective and objective; perhaps you can provide an example.
Mutual agreements and shared understanding. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Lev Lafayette wrote:
On Sun, April 12, 2015 8:48 pm, Rohan McLeod wrote:
I'm going to read "objective value" as a value judgement about an objective phenomena. An objective value judgement is a statement of fact. e.g., "this computer weighs 1.5kgs".
Alright this is simply a semantic matter; you call this a value judgement; I don't ; we can go round this circle all day. "This type of computer is the one we should all use"; is a "value judgement about an objective phenomena" This type of statement is (I am claiming) difficult or impossible to falsify !
Regarding "intersubjective" ; well I don't know would be intended by this word ; in the context of subjective and objective; perhaps you can provide an example. Mutual agreements and shared understanding.
Well if they were written down I would say they are objective; if they are spoken it would be possible they can be recorded, so potentially objective but if no objective evidence exists of them how can we be sure they are shared ? ; therefore I would consider them subjective ! regards Rohan
On Sun, April 12, 2015 10:24 pm, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Alright this is simply a semantic matter; you call this a value judgement; I don't ; we can go round this circle all day. "This type of computer is the one we should all use"; is a "value judgement about an objective phenomena" This type of statement is (I am claiming) difficult or impossible to falsify !
Isn't the difference between 1.1 kgs and 1.5 kgs a question of values? Specifically, weight?
Well if they were written down I would say they are objective; if they are spoken it would be possible they can be recorded, so potentially objective but if no objective evidence exists of them how can we be sure they are shared ? ; therefore I would consider them subjective
Even though multiple people are involved, and the matter concerns agreements, not individual tastes? Wouldn't that make them intersubjective and shared? -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Lev Lafayette wrote:
On Sun, April 12, 2015 10:24 pm, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Alright this is simply a semantic matter; you call this a value judgement; I don't ; we can go round this circle all day. "This type of computer is the one we should all use"; is a "value judgement about an objective phenomena" This type of statement is (I am claiming) difficult or impossible to falsify ! Isn't the difference between 1.1 kgs and 1.5 kgs a question of values? Specifically, weight?
Not in the above sense !
Well if they were written down I would say they are objective; if they are spoken it would be possible they can be recorded, so potentially objective but if no objective evidence exists of them how can we be sure they are shared ? ; therefore I would consider them subjective Even though multiple people are involved, and the matter concerns agreements, not individual tastes? Wouldn't that make them intersubjective and shared?
I have to repeat" how do we know they are shared, without objective evidence ? regards Rohan
On Sun, April 12, 2015 11:34 pm, Rohan McLeod wrote:
I have to repeat" how do we know they are shared, without objective evidence ?
My their mutual understanding. Despite all problems that individuals have discussing matters with other individuals it is evident that there is a shared language between them, which is neither subjective nor objective. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Lev Lafayette wrote:
In the 'Ethics of Liberty' he states a parent "may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die... the law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive."
That reminds me of this: Exposure was the preferred method of disposal, as that act in itself was not murder; moreover, the exposed child technically had a chance of being rescued by the gods or any passersby.^[32] -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide#Greece_and_Rome
On 11/04/2015 1:25 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
Murray Rothbard (the founder of modern "libertarianism") believes that parents should be allowed to starve their children to death.
Sorry the above was not meant to be left in the email. The following was....
That's because you are very gullible. You believe any conspiracy theory that goes around.
More bullshit. Of course, everything Snowden tells us about what has been going on was also "just a conspiracy" ... but it's not is it? Almost all the other rubbish you wrote doesn't even warrant a reply. Cheers A. _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 11:50:09AM +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
That's because you are very gullible. You believe any conspiracy theory that goes around.
More bullshit.
since you describe yourself as a Libertarian (in the american or anarcho-capitalist sense) and you're not one of the .001% who actually benefit from such an ideology, then "gullible" would seem to be an appropriate and accurate label, and definitively not "bullshit". also, your predilection for posting links to batshit-insane conspiracy and bizarre legal theory or tax theory websites, larouchian nutbaggery and worse, as if they are in any way credible contributes greatly. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
On 11/04/2015 12:07 PM, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 11:50:09AM +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
That's because you are very gullible. You believe any conspiracy theory that goes around.
More bullshit.
since you describe yourself as a Libertarian
That was obviously a mistake. All that you are other guys are pupporting to be libertarian do NOT fit my views. Consider myself un-described as a libertarian and read what I have written, rather than trying to label me with your version of the facts relating to that mis-used description. A.
You have resorted to profanity because you can't support your arguments. Feel free to demonstrate a lack of gullibility by not believing all the conspiracy theories. On April 11, 2015 11:50:09 AM GMT+10:00, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On 11/04/2015 1:25 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
Murray Rothbard (the founder of modern "libertarianism") believes that parents should be allowed to starve their children to death.
Sorry the above was not meant to be left in the email. The following was....
That's because you are very gullible. You believe any conspiracy theory that goes around.
More bullshit.
Of course, everything Snowden tells us about what has been going on was also "just a conspiracy" ... but it's not is it?
Almost all the other rubbish you wrote doesn't even warrant a reply.
Cheers A. _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
-- Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 with K-9 Mail.
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
In spite (or maybe because) of libertarianism the US has lots of very invasive laws, they lead the "war on drugs" and export it to every other country.
I think you mean 'The War on Drugs without Major Corporate Sponsorship'. ;-> (That idiocy is finally crumbling. One of the satisfactions of a long life is watching it happen.) FWIW, the term 'liberatarian' is outside the power structure in the USA, even in the loonier parts.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 03:20:17AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
(That idiocy is finally crumbling. One of the satisfactions of a long life is watching it happen.)
for cannabis, it is. in some states. but there's still cocaine and amphetamines and heroin and ecstacy and lsd and others to provide a plentiful supply of slave labor in privatised prisons. there's just far too much money in the war on drugs for it ever to be allowed to end. there's drug sales, and corruption/bribes for politicians and officials, and civil forfeiture for the cops to get their snouts in the trough, and prison labor and lots more.
FWIW, the term 'liberatarian' is outside the power structure in the USA, even in the loonier parts.
sort of. except for the fact that libertarianism is an ideology pushed by corporations and the mega-rich because it suits their interests for the vast bulk of the cretinous and credulous populace to believe that they'll be better off if they bend over to be fucked by corporations in the name of "Liberty" they've spent many billions on propaganda over the decades, directly in advertising and indirectly in TV and movie programming, to promote the idea that government is the source of all evil, that any kind of regulation is bad because regulations are socialism and socialism is baby-eating satanism, and that liberty means letting the rich do whatever they want without limit or consequence...and finally to dangle the absurdist fantasy that ordinary folks can aspire to be one of the rich and powerful. most of the world is horrified by what the rich and powerful get away with...while many americans support whatever they do because they fantasize that one day it could be them. so, yes, libertarianism is outside of the power structure. it's just one of their tools. it suits them for useful idiots to believe that neo-feudalism equals liberty. this would be surreally hilarious if it weren't true. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
for cannabis, it is. in some states. but there's still cocaine and amphetamines and heroin and ecstacy and lsd and others to provide a plentiful supply of slave labor in privatised prisons.
One step at a time. Cannabis has been the huge money-maker for the police departments and prison industries, so the police departments of states that propose legalising marijuana issue dire warnings of disaster: When voters pass reform anyway and disaster does _not_ follow, people have finally started noticing they've been lied to, and the movement gains momentum with each counterexample. The voters are also starting to see through the civil forfeiture scam. In infer that the next battleground will be opiates, judging by the Establishment campaign to convince people there's an 'epidemic' of prescription pain reliever abuse that must be controlled.
sort of. except for the fact that libertarianism is an ideology pushed by corporations and the mega-rich because it suits their interests for the vast bulk of the cretinous and credulous populace to believe that they'll be better off if they bend over to be fucked by corporations in the name of "Liberty"
With very little effect except possibly shifting the Overton Window. (You might appreciate my standard joke that Americans favour moderate republicans like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.)
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 06:55:47AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
for cannabis, it is. in some states. but there's still cocaine and amphetamines and heroin and ecstacy and lsd and others to provide a plentiful supply of slave labor in privatised prisons.
One step at a time. Cannabis has been the huge money-maker for the police departments and prison industries, so the police departments of states that propose legalising marijuana issue dire warnings of disaster: When voters pass reform anyway and disaster does _not_ follow, people have finally started noticing they've been lied to, and the movement gains momentum with each counterexample.
The voters are also starting to see through the civil forfeiture scam.
i'm sure that'll work, just as video cameras are stopping cops from shooting unarmed blacks in the back...and sees them not only charged with murder but convicted and sentenced. wishful thinking. unless the individual cop is extremely unlucky, they'll just lose their job and be found not guilty and then sue for compensation and/or their job back. or get another job as a cop in a different jurisdiction. obedient uniformed thugs are a very useful private army for the 1% and like to know that they'll be protected when doing their job of suppressing the poor. but, more relevantly to the drugs issue, they just shift the goalposts as needed. if marijuana is deemed to be OK, then ice or something else will be the evil gateway drug and all-round scapegoat. with all that money, there's plenty for propaganda campaigns.
In infer that the next battleground will be opiates, judging by the Establishment campaign to convince people there's an 'epidemic' of prescription pain reliever abuse that must be controlled.
in this country the current so-called epidemic is "ice". which is somehow magically different from the identical crystal meth that's been around for decades and is, according to our really truly well informed prime minister, the worst drug ever. there's been a moderate increase in users smoking meth rather than snorting it or injecting it (as was previously popular for heavy users in search of a greater rush), but the actual level of usage in the country has remained unchanged at, iirc, around 2% for a very long time. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> BOFH excuse #377: Someone hooked the twisted pair wires into the answering machine.
Rick Moen wrote:
One step at a time. Cannabis has been the huge money-maker for the police departments and prison industries, so the police departments of states that propose legalising marijuana issue dire warnings of disaster: When voters pass reform anyway and disaster does _not_ follow, people have finally started noticing they've been lied to, and the movement gains momentum with each counterexample.
The voters are also starting to see through the civil forfeiture scam.
There's a big problem here: without civil forfeiture, there is no premise for a Hollywood reboot of Miami Vice!
checks<
Never mind, that already happened, in 2006.
Craig Sanders wrote:
most of the world is horrified by what the rich and powerful get away with...while many americans support whatever they do because they fantasize that one day it could be them.
Apropos: Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. -- https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Steinbeck#Disputed
Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
In spite (or maybe because) of libertarianism the US has lots of very invasive laws, they lead the "war on drugs" and export it to every other country.
I think you mean 'The War on Drugs without Major Corporate Sponsorship'. ;->
(That idiocy is finally crumbling. One of the satisfactions of a long life is watching it happen.)
You mean coffee and chocolate are finally on Schedule I? About time.
participants (14)
-
Anders Holmström -
Andrew McGlashan -
Brian May -
Craig Sanders -
Jason White -
Lev Lafayette -
Michael Verrenkamp -
Mike Hewitt -
Paul Dwerryhouse -
Rick Moen -
Rohan McLeod -
Russell Coker -
Tony Langdon -
Trent W. Buck