Slashdot Mirror

So again you and that Philosopher are the idiots here for thinking the English statement "You can't prove a negative" translates to 'You can't prove a negative to be false" you certainly CAN prove a 'negative to be false'. The statement is more fully "You can't prove a negative to be true" and there is NO amount of symbolic logic that will let you wriggle out of that.

Using 1 of his examples we have:

A = Bigfoot exists
Not(A) = Not (Bigfoot exists) or in proper English grammar Bigfoot does not exist

IF you find 1 Bigfoot you have 'proven A to be true' but you have NOT proven 'Not-A to be TRUE' in fact by the very rule of 'logical non-contradiction' it can NOT be both so you have proven 'Not-A to be FALSE (or 'not-true)'. So no you have 'not proven a negative to be true', you have proven that 'negative to be FALSE'. OR if you REALLY want to blow your mind than I could say you have proven "Not-A is not a true statement is true' but that does NOT 'prove a negative' since all I've done there is 'Prove A is a true statement'.

Now, NO amount of evidence that 'Bigfoot does not exist' actually proves 'Bigfoot does not exist' because all it takes is finding 1 Bigfoot and the statement 'Bigfoot does not exist' will be FALSE not TRUE.

Now you've shifted from logic to science, which is where I contend that you certainly can prove a negative. Science is happy to say that, since after exhaustive searches we've never found any physical evidence of a bigfoot or even a good photo, bigfoot does not exist. That's a proven negative. Just as science would say that since reindeer have never been observed flying, do not have any lifting surfaces, thrust mechanisms, or lighter-than-air envelopes, and did not use flight ability to save their lives when thrown from a building, reindeer cannot fly.

Getting back to the logic of proving a negative, you seem to be arguing that it's impossible to prove the negative of a true statment to be true, which indeed conflicts with the law of non-contradiction, but that has nothing with the possibility or impossibility of proving a negative in general. Have a look at this:

http://www3.canisius.edu/~mole...

While they may not come come naturally, social skills can be taught to spectrum kids. Some greast research is being done by this team: http://www.canisius.edu/autism...

The paper is at the following link: http://www-cs.canisius.edu/~hertzm/gcmalloc-oopsla-2005.pdf

I ran into it while reading the discussion at http://sealedabstract.com/rants/why-mobile-web-apps-are-slow/

It doesn't convert it to a 'different beast entirely'. It's still bytecode, and slower than native code.

new/delete is still much faster than garbage collection, and doesn't freeze the UI like Android's GC does.

Check out this paper, they found that java with manual free's performs much much better than GC java, especially when memory is limited (as in phones):

http://www-cs.canisius.edu/~hertzm/gcmalloc-oopsla-2005.pdf

You should look at the example of the prairie dog - he build an underground nest with a lookout post, and there is enough space for four to five adult females.

more details.

Here's a visual programming environment called SIVIL that one of the professors here at Canisius has been working on for a while.

http://www-cs.canisius.edu/~meyer/VP/home.html

--saint

Many don't allow students to use them at all in class.

Canisius College, where I work, recently added wireless to the two main classroom buildings. We're already getting requests from the same faculty who called it "necessary" to find some way to turn it off during their classes.

Somehow, dull professors aren't any better at retaining their students' attention when there are more distractions available. Weird. Who would have thought.

--saint

Um, why in the world would a songwriter get $0.08 for distribution of a song by US law ?!?

I can understand if the RIAA, or some guild or union has a rule or a bylaw to that effect. But that doesn't make sense to me for two reasons.

1) What reason would the Government of the United States of America have to get involved with something stupid like this. Not only paying songwriters, but setting a specific price by law? WTF? In 50 years when inflation makes that worth even less than it is now, will congress change the law to 20 cents?

2) Define a songwriter. If I write a stupid song about my trip to Walmart (let's call it Ode to Church Road), and then I perform it with my PC's mic, and share it via Gnutella. Does that make me a songwriter? If someone then downloads it, am I then automatically entitled to 8 cents? If I write a stupid song and then perform it, can I share the file loaded with keywords for porn and movies and other artists, so that unsuspecting people download it, and then rake in the money 8 cents at a time? Sure, by US law any time anyone writes a note on a napkin, that is automatically copyrighted, but that's a little different. That's just saying "you created this, so you own it". It's not saying "you created it, now someone got a copy you are owed $0.08."

This just doesn't make sense to me. You could be right, but can you provide any links or anything to back up this claim?

I did find a few links that say US law has a *CAP* on what a songwriter can charge in royalties of 8 cents per song. But that's not the same thing. That doesn't mean that a songwriter has to get paid at all. It just says that 8 cents is the most he or she can charge.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not defending copyright violation. If I rip my copy of Dr. Dre's The Chronic to MP3 and "share" it. Then that's illegal. Regardless of songwriter fees or not. Dre (or his record label at the time, or someone who is not me) owns the copyright on that album. I have received no licensee in writing, verbal, or implied to redistribute his works.

But, your example with the indy bands is flawed. Many indy bands write their own music. In which case, they don't have to charge anything for it. If they want to distribute it for free, they can do so, since the $0.08 figure is a maximum, not a minimum (unless you know something I don't, which I haven't completely discounted). What happens if My indy band (let's call them "Don't Throw Knives At Me", I like that name) wants to do a punk cover of The Unknown Stunt Man (theme to the TV show, The Fall Guy, written by David Somerville, Gail Jensen & Glen Larson and originally performed by Lee Majors)? Does my shitty indy band have to contact Somerville & company, or pay up to $0.08 for every song pressed? Well, as far as I can tell, yes. But my knowledge in this area it limited.

So where am I going with this rant? If someone breaks the law, you go after them. Simple. If Don't Throw Knives At Me records a punk cover of The Unknown Stuntman, we either owe the songwriter up to $0.08 per physical copy that gets distributed, or we have to work out a special deal with them. But if *I* write "Ode To Church Road", and perform it with Don't Throw Knives At Me, then I don't owe myself any money unless I say I do, which is stupid, because then I'd have to pay income tax on what I paid myself and I'd wind up loosing money ( :

As to how one verifies that I didn't unconsciously plagiarize another song, that's stupid too. In this case, the burden of proof is on any accuser. The artist doesn't have to prove that each and every work they ever write is original. That's like having to prove documentation to prove that something I'm selling on ebay isn't stolen. It may or may not be a good idea, but it's not required. It can't be unless someone makes an accusation. And even then, I believe the burden of proof is on the accuser, is it not?

One last tangent:

I find this 8 cent law interesting. Until I read your post and did some digging, I was not previously aware of it. What I find interesting it the fact that it only applies to physical media, yet it applies to MP3s and other digital file based media. I'm assuming this is because unlike a radio broadcast (to which this statute does not apply) when you share via MP3, a new, permanent copy is made. But how is this different from me tape recording the song off of the radio (which is legal, I believe because of time shifting rulings, please correct me if I'm wrong)? Does a songwriter technically have to get a royalty off of that too?

Again, I'm not 100% sure on any of these points, this is just how it appears to me, based on the information I was able to gather and my ability to interpret it. Any lawyers in the house with relevant experience care to chime in?

Sources:
Texas Tech University
House.gov

First, then you can't have some student put up a porn site at namethisschool.net while the university's site is at namethisschool.edu or something.

I don't know if you meant this as a hypothetical or not, but it does happen. I work for the IS department at Canisius College and a few years ago someone bought canisius.com and set up a porn site there. It was pretty interesting trying to explain that to the people in publications and promotion.

"No, you don't want to put canisius.com on any of the literature. No, don't go there. Just trust me."

*scream*

--saint