Most of the information is voluntarily given and money is worthless in the hands of a very few. In the foreseable future someone will draw users with some kind of financial compensation and things will swing back the other way.
I really dislike it when 'visionaries' declare doom at a period's inception.
this kind of reply makes me cringe.. i had a manager once who would do something similar on rare occasions i asked about something he already stated in the past. he'd re-paste it into the chat window (sometimes twice).. as if fostering proof that i must be retarded for missing a nugget of his eternal wisdom. the only thing that kept me alive was collecting such snippets for eventual book or at least a blog post about how much he sucked at being a manager.
this was one of many valuable lessons of what not to do. ever.
Small world, I think I worked for the same guy. My favorite nugget of wisdom from him was a dismissive "connect the dots..." that turned out to imply something that was disastrously incorrect.
and peterkelley wasn't being "snarky" either. he was making a joke, based on the description of the subject-matter of the book.
oh, and i'm not being "snarky" either. but it's so very difficult to resist the temptation!, i don't know if i'm gonna be able to do it!, i can feel myself slipping even as i continue typing!...
"Trusting your doctor when you are sick is not an instance of fallacious reasoning."
Nor is it an argument. It's an action based on a personal risk assessment.
If you said "The cancer studies are trash because my doctor says they are." Then you would be making a fallacious argument. Authority is only rational as a screening tool in the evaluation of large amounts of after information. It most definitely is not a proof.
> Nor is it an argument. It's an action based on a personal risk assessment.
Concluding that something is the best course of action because an expert authority is, in fact, an example of the results of an inductive argument.
P1: I am sick.
P2: I have no knowledge of how to treat my sickness.
P3: Knowing how to treat my sickness requires expert-level knowledge.
P4: My doctor says I should take X to treat my sickness.
P5: If my doctor is an unbiased expert whose opinion is representative
of the medical community on my sickness, then what my doctor is
prescribing is likely correct.
P6: I have no reason to believe my doctor is not an unbiased expert
whose opinion is representative of the medical community on my
sickness.
------------------------------
C: If I follow my doctor's prescription, my sickness will most
likely be treated correctly.
This is a valid argument, and not an appeal to or argument from authority. The conclusion is justified based on the premises provided.
One could, of course, discount any of the premises provided: for example, I could later find out that my doctor is a hack. If I do not then revise my conclusion or introduce new evidence to, then the conclusion would no longer be justified and the argument would become invalid.
> If you said "The cancer studies are trash because my doctor says they are." Then you would be making a fallacious argument.
If you make the claim that certain cancer studies are trash because your doctor says they are despite expert consensus indicating that they are, in fact, conclusive, then yes, your argument would be fallacious.
If, on the other hand, you make the claim that certain cancer studies are trash because your doctor says they are and it so happens that your doctor's position is representative of the oncology community as a whole, your argument would not be fallacious (or, rather, it would not be fallacious merely on the basis of an argument from authority).
> It most definitely is not a proof.
Informal fallacies, like the argument from authority, are indications of faults in an argument: they are not proof-enders, nor do they apply to proofs. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by saying an inductive argument is not a proof. No one could, or should, dispute that.
1. Too expensive for the seller. Lots of games are played with the rating system - discerning who is honest and who isn't gets to be about reading between the lines in the comments rather than using the star system. The 'local only'function works poorly.
2. I like the auction house paradigm, but would like one that was more third party friendly so people could personalize the experience.
3. No. I don't want to be separated from that transaction.
4. Nothing that I haven't covered above, but I'm happy to answer any other market research questions.
This is a big one. The change of bankruptcy laws to benefit huge financial institutions, that then got bailed out by the same tax payers against whom they lobbied to get these draconian changes to bankruptcy laws passed was... well not just shocking... not just a demonstration of how corrupt and off-track our political system has become... not sure what the word is but it goes beyond hypocrisy.
I remember growing up outside of the US learning quite explicitly that one of the geniuses of the American system, a key factor in its dramatic success compared to other countries, and a competitive advantage, was its bankruptcy system that allowed people to try things; put in best efforts; but in the worst case scenario get a fresh start.
Getting rid of that was insane and I worry about its long term consequences. US entrepreneurs already face additional risks versus their overseas counterparts - like lack of a healthcare system not tied to employers - and taking away a major structural advantage they had is almost certainly going to have a detrimental effect.
I really dislike it when 'visionaries' declare doom at a period's inception.