So...ever look up at the night sky? Are you not looking at information, and are you certain you understand the semantic and semiotic content that is being transmitted? Just because data is not explicit as a Pepsi commercial doesn't mean, a priori, we are without affect or effect.
If you can partner up and take some time, BUD/S...it will change your outlook on life. This isn't something to be done alone as most of us have trained an 8-hour sleep routine. Somewhere around 72 hours of 'non-sleep' you'll stop thinking and be grounded. However, at around 48 hours you'll likely experience a psychotic episode which could lead anywhere...hence, the buddy.
Yeah, squirrel obviously has a time advantage, is at least motivated by its appetite...and its offspring either don't eat saw blades or out-reproduce losses.
Right, in science, bias is what we are attempting to isolate and eliminate from the experiment. Thus, regardless of what type of meat I am, causation and will exist predictably...regardless of social ontology.
I think of it in terms of bias vs bias bias, and getting caught up in my own reflection; or, it's turtles all the way down (rationalism).
But I think that's the point: when we attempt to "frame" nature in terms of agency, our dialectic often drifts toward "I" and bias. It's all rather circular.
Perhaps Aristotle and George would have been good friends?
Agreed. Historically this "evil spirit" metaphor has been a symbol used to deny accountabilty for everything from battery to rape and murder. It also includes religious baggage.
A homunculus didn't do it; I am it and I did that.
I see, thanks for clarifying. Perhaps you can use your superior education to explain when and where the terms "right" and "left" were defined; and then help me understand how liberalization of education and training over time has been counterproductive to society.
Even if it were possible to raise the barrier on turning stolen phones into cash, it does not follow that it will reduce the rate of theft in the least. Do you think those that risk so much for so little are just going to roll over and die? Did you not learn the lesson of Whac-A-Mole?
If you really care about the victims, you'd use the warrant not to attempt to render tools to trash dumps, but instead use the warrant to query the networks. You know, perhaps give SWAT something legitimate to do... That seems like a deterrent for future thieves and a way to catch current thieves; or at least easier than catching copper thieves.
Is nothing finite, infinite, undefined, or? What you're calling "nothing" is actually everything not in your artificial construction.
If we unpack "nothing" further, we'll find any number of 'somethings' that are worse than what you're attempting to measure and affect. That's what we call Unintended Consequences, and not simply tautology or Begging the Question.
It is far from clear that this measure will have any significant affect on crimes such as robbery. And if we begin to unpack the "something" we quickly get to questions like, "Is it really a good idea to design a method for centrally destroying critical communication infrastructure?"
Following your logic, shouldn't we expect more robberies to make up for lost revenue?
If you're still in search of "cause", I'd suggest that the rate of robbery is inversely proportional to the typical waist size over time, i.e. we're wealthier now than we were.
If something is better than nothing, instead of expending capital on owner-supplied code infrastructure, why not pay robbers not to rob? That way, there's greater chance the owner is alive to use their device. (I'm thinking more control for you.)
And people carry much of value besides electronics today. You can use NYC seizure records and ATMs as proxies.
Robbery has been trending down since the 90s. What was being stolen before the proliferation of cell tech during the 2000s? I think it's clear cellular phones do not cause theft. Though, I do think those robbed, are robbed of all of their valuables. I also think it's clear that those robbed were targeted, and a valuable phone suggests other valuables. I also am aware of existing parts markets including eBay and traditional retail. Will this Kill Switch render a device worth less than its weight in copper? Probably not. "I want your wallet, watch, and such--keep the phone."
I think if we were actually serious about victims, instead of using that warrant for a Kill Switch, we'd use it to query the networks and track the breadcrumbs; it's even richer than metadata sourced from billing systems. (It works for finding missing hikers.) And I'm pretty sure existing law covers this already.