Well said.
And punching someone in the dark is a victimless crime!
But if you donât listen to it, does it actually exist?
Well a said. But if you want the permalink to get legs you should correct the typo in the headline. Iâd love to see this get legs.
Well said? What? if zero = zero then zero?
I think I may have missed a section of my âbeing persuadedâ classes.
What-a you-a talkinâ about? Izza lovely headline.
BOOOOOOOM
(except contradictions donât matter when youâre the government)
Thatâs literally the legal theory that they rely on to justify the dragnet - because a computer isnât a person, it canât surveil, it canât search or seize, and doesnât require a warrant.
That really needs to change.
Solved!
Now if only our governments knew shame.
Except that the corollary probably isnât too palatable:
âIf downloading music without listening to it isnât piracy ⊠then recording your calls without playing them back isnât surveillance.â
Are you sure you want to sign up to that position?
Iâm sorry, If-Then statements are only one-way, by default, therefore you canât, without additional arguments, assume the reverse statement has any merit.
âIf youâre my friend Bobâs wife, your name must be Sharon.â does not imply that âIf your name is Sharon then you must be my friend Bobâs wife.â
Now, if the phrase was âIf and only if recording your calls without a-playing them back isnât surveillance, then downloading music without listening to it isnât piracy.â you might have a good point.
Touché and bravo
Even better. Blank Cassette tapes have a portion of their sell go directly to the RIAA.
So if you purchased a blank cassette you paid for the legal right to record any music to that mediumâit was yours. To listen too and use. (But not to sell).
SoâŠDownload directly to Cassette; nothing says that you canât DL in digital format to the cassette. At that point youâve legally âownedâ the content as youâve paid the RIAA fee by purchasing the cassette.
Then upload it from cassetteâŠto you computer MP3 player whatever. like any other content youâve paid the RIAA fee. for your personal use.
WAT?!? Methinks youâve taken your logic course yet missed the vocab quiz.
The proper comparison would be as follows:
If birds that are black are not school buses then this bird that is black is not a school bus.
Your view of IFF being required is nonsense.If and only if birds that are black are not school buses then this other bird that is black is not a school bus. But birds that are not black are also not school buses, so the âand only ifâ portion is nonsensical.
Sorry, your comparison is not correct. Youâre assuming your conclusion when you say âBirds that are not black are also not schoolbusesâ. In THAT case, itâs a perfectly acceptable conclusion to assume, because we can SEE that. But you canât generalize to every other case.
In your example, we may accept the proposition that âIf birds that are black are not school buses than this other bird that is black is not a school busâ as true. But weâre not yet evaluating the sentence âbirds that are black are not school busesâ. Weâre only evaluating the if-then statement. So when we look at your secondary example, âIf this bird that is black is not a school bus, then birds that are black is not a school busâ⊠thatâs not guaranteed by the first if-then statement. Perhaps thereâs a black bird that IS a school bus (yes, I know, it seems absurd, but, say weâre talking to an alien who knows nothing about black birds or school buses⊠we have to PROVE that). The alien might well accept your first if-then (because it is logically true whether you know anything about black birds or school buses), but you havenât given him any evidence about the second.
âIf X then Yâ means just that, âif X is true, then Y is true.â It doesnât mean that if Y is true, X is true. Y can be true without X being true. Sure, there may be values of X and Y for which when Y is true, X is true, but itâs not guaranteed by the first statement. If and only if makes this connection (you may still have to prove the validity of the âif and only if statementâ of course, but if you provisionally accept it you can make always deductions about whether X is true based on the state of Y, and vice versa⊠with an if-then statement you can only make deductions about Y when X is true, and if Y happens to be not true, we can deduce that X is not true, but thatâs all, at least not without bringing in outside evidence).
Is there a context to this story or is it just a wayward twitter post?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
