Mozilla's TTS is a python package installable with pip and uses cpu or gpu resources to render a choice of voices, they mostly sound natural and this is the good. https://github.com/mozilla/TTS
Mycroft's mimic3 is the default voice renderer for the Mycroft project that runs on pi hardware and sounds ok-ish, that is the fast. https://github.com/MycroftAI/mimic3
There are many others but these are the two I use according to if it needs to run on limited hardware or if the cycles fall freely from the sky.
For me as long as they are biodegradable, then that's ok. Recycling them isn't that much of issue. It's the plastic materials that are introduced to the ecology and do not biodegrade in the short term that is problematic.
It's a dark room for exposing film to photographs, from way back when you did it by hand using pans of chemicals. The light allows you to see enough to work without exposing the photo sensitive materials and ruining your work.
"When making black-and-white prints, a safelight is commonly used to illuminate the work area. Since the majority of black-and-white papers are sensitive to only blue, or to blue and green light, a red- or amber-colored light can be safely used without exposing the paper" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkroom
“Some argue that, to achieve at best a slight incremental improvement in security, it is worth imposing a massive cost on society in the form of degraded safety,” he (U.S. attorney general William Barr) said
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
The context when Franklin said that is interesting. Pennsylvania was having trouble on the western frontier due to the French and Indian War, and the legislature wanted to put a tax on land to raise money for arms for defense.
The governor was blocking this, because the Penn family, which owned a lot of Pennsylvania land, objected. The Penn family did recognize the need for defense (although they were largely absentee landlords so not in personal danger), and offered to donate a lump sum for the arms if the legislator would agree that it did not have the power to tax Penn land.
Franklin's quote was in a letter he wrote to the governor arguing for rejection of this offer.
The "essential Liberty" he was referring to was the liberty of the legislature to legislate how it saw fit, including taxing Penn land to pay for security, and the "purchase a little temporary Safety" was the one time lump sum for arms.
That was in 1755. He did re-use the phrase 20 years later in 1775 in a more general context, closer to what people quote it for nowadays.
Same exact reaction here. Had to re-read it several times. For anyone else confused: I think by "security" he's referring to infosec and by "safety" he's referring to physical safety. (As opposed to my initial reading, where I thought "security" meant physical security and "safety" meant online safety.)
That’s not a logical argument by Franklin, it’s his opinion. There’s no axiomatic reason why Ben Franklin’s opinion is more correct than anyone else’s, even William Barr’s.
Says the rhetoritician; cleverly trying to blur the issue. Opinion or no, the principle is consistent through much of the intellectual environ's of the time. If both statememt's are read as opinion's neither wins. If both are construed as statements of fact, Franklin's still holds the more portentous conclusion. Namely that the being willing to sacrifice his capacity to guide himself to live longer , will inevitably result in neither goal being attained. Everyone dies.
So that's really a bit of a non-starter. I would say that Franklin has more credibility however; if only because of the man's legendary common sense.
I'll also point out, Franklin's sentiment can be traced back to the principle that "Vigilia aeterna est pretium libertatis". A consequence of which is, sorry Mr. Barr. Tell your police to do some actual investigative work. It is not the job of the populace to relinquish essential liberty to make tyranny in the making that much further realized.
It is what we do with our Liberty that elevates us as angels, or drops us to the level of daemonic debasement.
Law enforcement needs to understand their job should never be made trivial as their very existence in and of itself is as the sole means to rescension of that which culturally we value most; hich should absolutely be as burdensome a process as possible in the light of what is being taken.
Never mind that making unbackdoored encryption illegal just adds a token charge to a long list of other charges, which to me is an absolute anti-pattern, of the same level as most firearm regulation in light of the second amendment; which I'll admit to being a bit of a hard-liner on.
Your comparison to the second amendment is not just "on the same level", but entirely accurate.
To this day the United States Munitions List, classifies cryptographic devices under Category XIII Materials and Miscellaneous Articles.
All the way back to the pre-constitution 1784 Virgina General Assembly, to some extent recognizes the need for secure communications channels in a militia. "There shall be a private muster of every company once in every three months", and setting forth those in charge of initiating and communicating the time and place of the muster.
People often focus on the first amendment right to encryption. But I at least feel that the second amendment right is equally strong, with the governments own position on arms control behind it, legal interpretation should if anything not tolerate it's own inconsistency.
Benjamin Franklin is a Founding Father and has been generally accepted as an authority for more than 200 years, especially on the subject of freedoms and rights. He was a renown political theorist, politician, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat in his own day, not to mention the fact his reputation has stood the test of time.
>Can you call it that though?
>One is a person with a well-earned a reputation, the other.. well you get the point.
Yes
>An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion
You're not defending the point logically; you're only supporting argument is that someone with a good reputation supports it as well.
The annoying thing about "logical fallacies" is that if anyone season argument they disagree with that resembles a "fallacy", that quote it and act like theyve won.
He is not saying that everything Benjamin Franklin has ever said is true. Obviously. However, if a well renowned and respected Authority has an opinion that some evil schmuck disagrees with, it provides evidence as to who is more likely to be correct. That's not what an appeal to Authority is
>The annoying thing about "logical fallacies" is that if anyone season argument they disagree with that resembles a "fallacy", that quote it and act like theyve won.
That is annoying and I agree, but that's not what's going on here.
>He is not saying that everything Benjamin Franklin has ever said is true.
No one said he was.
>However, if a well renowned and respected Authority has an opinion that some evil schmuck disagrees with, it provides evidence as to who is more likely to be correct.
No it doesn't. It absolutely _does not_. Reputation isn't irrelevant in so far as it lends credibility to a person's statements, but the discussion doesn't stop there. If you're going to defend a quote then defend it. Saying "this is true because X is trustworthy and Y is an 'evil schmuck'" is not an argument.
If this is not a prime example of Appeal to Authority then show me why it's not and provide an example. You're just throwing out your opinions as if they were fact.
This is not an example of Appeal to Authority because Ben Franklin is an accepted authority. If all parties agree on the reliability of an authority in the given context it becomes a valid inductive argument. Otherwise every Citation or Source or Bibliography would be a "logical fallacy". An Appeal to Authority would be if the quote was attributed to someone like James Polk. Sure he was president, but he has no authority on this sort of subject.
>This is not an example of Appeal to Authority because Ben Franklin is an accepted authority.
...huh?
>If all parties agree on the reliability of an authority in the given context it becomes a valid inductive argument.
No, it doesn't. Why do you believe that? How do you feel about quantum mechanics? Do you realize that Einstein fought tooth and nail against it for years?
>Otherwise every Citation or Source or Bibliography would be a "logical fallacy".
Citations link to works, not authorities. A citation may link to, say, an academic paper which provides evidence to support its assertions. No one is linking to random comments made by so-called authorities, that would never be accepted (unless the citation was to literally show that a quote is legitimate, i.e., made by the person claimed to have made it.)
But given a hypothetical question like “What play should a football team run when they are on 2nd down and 3 with 2:19 in the 3rd Quarter while leading by 3 points” — wouldn’t a professional NFL coach’s opinion be given more credence than mine? Einstein may have been wrong on quantum mechanics but if you had 1000 physics question it would be hard to think of a better person to ask.
You're proving my point. When examining an argument you should do so based on the merits of said argument. That's literally the basis of Appeal to Authority. It doesn't get more clear cut than this.
I'd also like to point out you have yet to provide a single fact in support of anything you're saying.
>However, if a well renowned and respected Authority has an opinion that some evil schmuck disagrees with, it provides evidence as to who is more likely to be correct.
Providing evidence towards the likelihood of truth, as I said, and saying "this is true because X is trustworthy and Y is an 'evil schmuck'", as you said, are not equivalent.
Are you actually trying to argue you can't tell the opinion of children and subject matter experts apart because gathering evidence based on reputation is a logical fallacy?
If you keep posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait here we are going to ban you. I don't want to do that, because you've also posted good comments. Would you please fix this?
But, "Only the Sith deal in absolutes." - Obi-Wan Kenobi
I don't think opinions of people who were born before telegraphs matter much in today's political discourse. Basically, it boils down to, "I found a quote I agree with, and when I attach $(some famous dead person)'s name on to it, it sounds really great and authoritative."
If you really think that we aren’t facing the same problems today, that didn’t exist 300 years ago; you need to take a far harder look at the problems.
I kinda agree with you, but quoting Benjamin Franklin as a solution is not exactly "taking a harder look" at the problem. How is it any better than "because the Bible says so!"?
As much as I disagree with Barr and I've repeated that quote countless times, I can't help but think it's utterly stupid. Did Ben Franklin really think we should throw out things like the rule of law and the police? They are an explicit trade of Liberty for Safety. Was he some sort of fundamentalist anarchist?
"All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."
You are intentionally misinterpreting his quote. He doesn't think much of excessive property. Yes, you probably don't need a 3rd home while other people have no homes...
Yes, and the distinction is completely artificial. Worse, he gets the relationship between property and law exactly backwards. Property rights, even for what some here are calling "excessive" property, were not created "by the public" (meaning by legislators) through the passage of laws. Rather, property rights existed first and laws were passed to rationalize the abridgement of those rights when they proved inconvenient to those in power.
If you take someone else's property for your own use by force without their permission, they are perfectly justified in using force to take your property without your permission. That is the fundamental natural law which underlies property rights, as well as all other natural rights: reciprocation. It doesn't matter who the property belongs to, how much other property they have, or who is doing the taking.
The "fundamental natural law" you appeal to is none of those things, so it would be disingenuous to hold him to it. I'm not sure how I feel about the quote and don't have enough context on his thinking to really judge it, but your rejection sounds dogmatic, not reasoned.
I'm not "holding him to" anything. I'm just stating a fact. It is not logical to claim that it is simultaneously right for you to be able to do something unilaterally to someone else but wrong for that person to do exactly the same thing to you. Not unless you're arguing against the universality of rights in general, anyway, and if you're taking that approach then you can't make any meaningful statements at all about what rights other people may or may not have.
If you take someone's property without their permission there are three possibilities: (1) you admit that it's wrong and deserving of punishment; (2) you claim that taking property without permission is universally right (i.e. that there are no property rights), in which case you can't complain when others take your property; or (3) you claim that rights are not universal, in which case others can claim the right to take your property just as easily as you claim the right to take theirs. Whichever path you choose, the act of theft justifies its own proportional punishment. The same reasoning applies to any other natural right, as they are all based on the principle of reciprocation.
I agree this isn't the time or place, but you are not stating a fact; rather you are choosing a particular framing which is neither unique nor universally accepted.
It doesn't matter whether or not I agree with you or Franklin (or neither) here - I was noting that your attempt at pointing out his "error" is itself logically flawed and does not demonstrate any such error on his part.
You claim that I am "not stating a fact" but it is a fact that any claim that an action is right when done by one person but wrong when done by another is either an internal contradiction or a repudiation of any universal standard for right and wrong. Either way, you can't consistently argue that a proportional response would be wrong after taking that same action yourself.
I should hope that this argument is not "unique", since it's just an application of basic logic, and I really couldn't care less whether the conclusions are universally accepted. The logic is sound whether you accept it or not.
Ah, we seem to be focused on different parts of your state to. The problem you ran into is axiomatic, not logical. You are asserting a concept of property that is not the same as Franklins, and then attempting to refute him based on that framework. He (I thinks least, based on those quotes alone) is proposing a quite different framework, so you have fallen into a type of category error. That is what I was pointing out. It’s all fair to argue that his framework is inferior, but it is illogical to just claim he got it wrong because it doesn’t fit the framework you prefer.
I think this has run its course, it’s not a good media to get into something like this at depth.
Keywords being "essential" and "temporary" in the original quote. Granted, that leaves a lot of room for interpretation, but Franklin was not advocating doing away with, for example, law enforcement.
Though I would agree it's a quote of triteness and "just so" convenience that gets massively abused.
I wonder how Benjamin Franklin would feel about its common usage nowadays. For specific context I used to use this quote in relation to my dislike of the PATRIOT act and similar, and I never really took any introspection as to whether I was truly defending my position through the use/abuse of the quote. Granted I was literally in middle school at the time, so maybe my lack of a more nuanced position could be forgiven, but a quote is not an argument.
